Hi Tom,
On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 at 20:10, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 at 20:00, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 07:32:59PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 at 17:13, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 02:20:15PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Soeren,
On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 at 12:15, Soeren Moch smoch@web.de wrote:
On 08.03.22 17:56, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 at 09:49, Heinrich Schuchardt xypron.glpk@gmx.de wrote: >> >> On 3/8/22 12:36, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: >>> With this patch set[1] applied, UEFI subsystem maintains a list of its >>> disk objects dynamically at runtime based on block device's probing. >>> (See "issues" below.) >>> >>> [1]https://github.com/t-akashi/u-boot/tree/efi/dm_disk >> >> This series together with Simon's series breaks multiple boards due to >> size constraints: >> >> https://source.denx.de/u-boot/custodians/u-boot-efi/-/pipelines/11197 >> >> Please, investigate how to work around this issue. > > tbs2910 - perhaps we should just drop this board? It doesn't use > DM_SERIAL and still uses OF_EMBED
Are we again at the same point? You are breaking working boards with (for these boards) useless additions, and all you come up with is "remove this board". Of course without adding the board maintainer.
I'm just expressing reasonable frustration that this board uses OF_EMBED and does not use DM_SERIAL, after all of this time. Why should the rest of the U-Boot developers care more about this board than the maintainer?
Please keep in mind Simon that we've had zero releases with the DM_SERIAL migration warning being posted, v2022.04 will be the first one.
Yes, understood :-) For OF_EMBED though...?
No deadline and 50 boards.
Er, there has been a build message about that since the beginning, so people ignored it. Do we really need to make the build fail for these sorts of things? Perhaps so, but it is a sad situation.
It was actually quite hard to add a migration message until we added the CONFIG_SERIAL base thing and that was a pain to do.
For those of us who take on larger refactors etc., we end up spending a lot of our time on these few platforms. I'm not picking on tbs2910in in particular.
Well, the flip side of the problem here is that there's a number of platforms with real constraints to them and it keeps being "can we drop this yet?" without CC'ing the board maintainer on the series that once again pushes a given platform to the limit. I would expect no size growth to tbs2910 for the topic of this series since it disables EFI_LOADER entirely, so why is it a problem?
The partition changes are going to add some size anyway, I expect. I have not actually analysed it though. Perhaps we can just disable a filesystem?
One more thing, if we get around to supporting file access through a device that is also going to add some size, although perhaps not a huge amount.
Regards, SImon
Simon