On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 03:46:31PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 8:40 AM Ilias Apalodimas > <ilias.apalodi...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 08:43:14AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > Hi Maxim, > > > > > > On Fri, 5 May 2023 at 04:50, Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uva...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uva...@linaro.org> > > > > --- > > > > .gitmodules | 3 +++ > > > > lib/lwip/lwip-external | 1 + > > > > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > > create mode 100644 .gitmodules > > > > create mode 160000 lib/lwip/lwip-external > > > > > > > > > > Please no submodules. They are such a pain. If we want the code in > > > U-Boot, let's put it in U-Boot and upstream our changes as needed. > > > > Can you explain a bit more the pain points you are seeing in u-boot with > > submodules? EDK2 does submodules for openSSL and it's quite convenient, > > since you dont have to maintain any code, do backports etc. Instead we can > > just use upstream projects as-is. > > I feel there's pros and cons for both, similarly different projects > have different projects have different policies. Tom may have a more > definite opinion. > > > IMHO we should work on having it as an experimental feature in parallel > > with the current TCP efforts for a while and have a Kconfig switch. If we > > are happy in the long run and the code increase isn't prohibitive, we can > > consider switching permanently > > At least for initial review of the prototype I don't see it as > blocking for people to get a general idea what is going on.
Yeah, I also don't like submodules. But for the purpose of this RFC, at this stage in the RFC, it's fine. May or may not be easier to review. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature