On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 08:39:15PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Tom, > > In message <20170623140934.GD27196@bill-the-cat> you wrote: > > > > Since he addressed a number of the comments from the previous > > discussions, it would be helpful to point out the things that were > > overlooked, thanks! > > I thought this should be clear from the previous discussion. The > major concern is that this patch brings back a large amount of ccode > that will obviously remain unfixed, untested and unmaintained. Just > to list a few examples: > > arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc8xx/bedbug_860.c > arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc8xx/kgdb.S > arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc8xx/video.c > drivers/block/sil680.c > drivers/pcmcia/mpc8xx_pcmcia.c > drivers/usb/gadget/mpc8xx_udc.c > examples/standalone/test_burst.* > examples/standalone/timer.c > post/cpu/mpc8xx/usb.c (probably even post/cpu/mpc8xx/*)
OK, cool. Now we have concrete reminders and we also have some platforms coming in that will be making use of mpc8xx. > Also, directory hierarchy should be fixed for a number of drivers. > > It is IMO wrong to plan for a remove - revert - remove sequence. > > This may be the way how Christophe actually starts developing his > patches. As he mentioned, it might be useful for history reasons. > But as I also explained before, going this route is a guarantee to > keep a ton of unused, untested and unmaintained code which will not > be removed as Christophe does not understand what it might be needed > for. Please don't misunderstand me: I don't mean to suggest that I > doubt on Christophe's qualification for this job - I mean nobody > would be able to do this without being able to test the code on all > the plethora of different boards that once needed such quirks. > > Starting with all the old code and trying to remove unused stuff is > _guaranteed_ to fail. We have to go the other way: start with > minimal code and add only what is really needed - especially as this > is a dead, obsolete processor architecture, and chances that any new > boards be added is epsilon. > > It is in Christophe's own interest to restrict the code to those > parts that his boards really need. I admit that I am responsible > for large parts of that code, and I well remeber the #ifdef mess > that was added way back thento deal with all the subtleties of the > many boards we had to support. Trust me, I know what I'm speaking > about. > > To make this clear: I am in no way against continuing to support > mpc8xx. But we should not let him run into an unmaintainable mess > of code. So, Christophe, please iterate on the mpc8xx patches so that you're bringing back just the parts of the code that you need. Thanks! -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
