On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 11:57:23AM +0000, Daniel Golle wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 01:32:19PM -0600, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 11:46:17AM -0600, Tom Rini wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 09:21:14PM +0000, Daniel Golle wrote: > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > This RFC series adds a new boot method for OpenWrt's "uImage.FIT with > > > > embedded rootfs" firmware model, along with the underlying > > > > infrastructure > > > > to load FIT images on-demand directly from storage devices without > > > > copying > > > > them entirely to RAM first. > > > [snip] > > > > AI tool disclosure > > > > ================== > > > > > > > > Major parts of this series were developed with assistance from GitHub > > > > Copilot (Claude Opus 4.6, Anthropic). The AI was used as a coding > > > > partner for scaffolding boilerplate, drafting documentation and commit > > > > messages, running checkpatch sweeps, and iterating on review feedback. > > > > All architectural decisions, U-Boot subsystem integration, hardware > > > > testing, and final review were done by the human author. Every line of > > > > code was reviewed and tested on real hardware before inclusion. > > > > > > First, I appreciate your honesty and explanation in the disclosure here. > > > > > > This topic comes up, and will keep coming up, and as a project we have > > > not yet decided on a position. I know that the Linux Kernel has come up > > > with: > > > https://docs.kernel.org/next/process/generated-content.html > > > so far. But I think that: > > > https://docs.postmarketos.org/policies-and-processes/development/contributing-and-ai.html > > > brings up points that are quite relevant too. Absolutely no one has been > > > happy with when gitlab or patchwork were unusable / unreachable (and for > > > some people are still unusable) but it's because of all the AI scrapers > > > that things were unusable or now have anubis in front of them (blocking > > > other humans now). > > > > > > With that said, I want to stress the "human is responsible" portion of > > > what both links say, and that given where exactly these changes are > > > aimed for, extra scrutiny is required. Things like: > > > https://cyberplace.social/@GossiTheDog/116080909947754833 > > > show just how bad they are about introducing security bugs these days. > > > > Following up on this part I suppose, I see in CI you're working on v2 > > but please make sure to follow up with the other outstanding questions > > I've asked before posting that. Thanks! > > I've carefully reiterated over all your emails regarding the series and > my replies to them. Apart from your request to share an image making use > of the proposal to include dm-verity parameters in uImage.FIT (and use > the presence to decide whether has varifications of that subimage may be > skipped) I haven't found anything which hasn't been answered. But maybe > I missed something, of course.
There's: https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20260217150820.GB2747538@bill-the-cat/ And I see you're using CI, but I didn't see an ack about the size investigations portion. There's: https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20260217192000.GH2747538@bill-the-cat/ And I didn't see anything about that. There's: https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20260217190554.GF2747538@bill-the-cat/ https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20260219153100.GL3233182@bill-the-cat/ Which go together and I think "human written only commit message" might well be a good policy as it helps ensure the patch in question has been read and summarized by the human author (and enforcement is on the honor system). Finally there's: https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20260217191536.GG2747538@bill-the-cat/ where I was hoping for more feedback. I don't recall if we came to a conclusion, or just look again later, about if we should have this functionality both exposed via "bootm" and the new distro bootmeth, or not. It might be "talk more" and I'm leaning currently on saying the migration path is something openwrt holds downstream while getting things migrated? And in sum, this series will need to be split up a bit I strongly suspect. Being clear about the end goal is good but implementing each of the backends as well in a single series will make this too large to review. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
