Am 27.01.2014 12:00, schrieb Alexander Graf:
> On 27.01.2014, at 11:45, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote:
>> Am 27.01.2014 11:31, schrieb Alexander Graf:
>>> On 27.01.2014, at 11:11, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In particular I am not so happy about you guys hardcoding OMAP4 hacks in
>>>> generic code that is being reused by all u-boot-* packages with SPL.
>>>
>>> Uh - where exactly do we have OMAP4 hacks in generic code?
>>
>> The bulk of mlo-ext2.patch is in common/spl/spl_mmc.c!
>>
>> spl_mmc_load_image() is being patched with
>> + boot_mode = MMCSD_MODE_FAT; /* Fix OMAP4 boot */
>
> Where is that an OMAP4 hack? It just sets the boot mode to FAT (which we
> reuse for ext2) rather than raw.
It affects more than just "MLO". I expect mlo-ext2.patch to only affect
TI stuff, not Tegra, ODROID, and whomever comes along. It should really
be split in two otherwise, one for configs/omap{3_beagle,4_common}.h and
one for common SPL fiddling. Fixing "OMAP4 boot" by touching common code
in a patch that is applied to all linked packages is simply not OK.
Same for the huge sunxi patch - why can't that live in Contrib:sunxi
rather than me having to count my fingers for how that patch was created
and what to do with it on update.
Patches just changing boot.scr are much less of a hassle.
[...]
>> It really sucks that it's all a gross local hack that none of you
>> upstreamed with proper CONFIG_* guards since 2012.
>> My .gnu.hash patch I immediately submitted upstream after verifying that
>> u-boot-am335xevm builds without mlo-ext2.patch.
>
> That one's slightly less controversial too ;).
If it's so controversial then why are we carrying it and allowing it to
hold up updating our generic U-Boot for, e.g., the rpi_b? :)
Andreas
--
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-arm+unsubscr...@opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-arm+ow...@opensuse.org
