On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:08:38PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Sascha,
In message 20090421182102.GZ21747@pengutronix.de you wrote:
This is not quite correct. What I consider important is an evo- lutionary path - this may include bigger changes and reorganizations, but I consider it a bad idea to not provide a reasonable migration path for larger parts of the existing community.
Then start proving your point by removing CONFIG_NET_MULTI. U-Boot carries two incompatible network driver APIs for at least the last seven years and still 19 drivers have not switched to the new API.
What exactly do you complain about? Have there been any such patches posted that I 9or anybody else) rejected?
I wouldn't read this as a complain, it is just a statement of fact that design flaws in v2 got fixed several orders of magnitude faster than in v1.
It was exactly this kind of stagnation that made me fork U-Boot. I was
You did not even attempt to fix this, or did you, and I repressed the memory of this?
The point probably is that is was easier to design it right from scratch and then add support for needed cpus and devices. And looking at v2 I have to admit that investing the same time I spent fixing v1 for nestar board into v2 I'd be already done (minus i2c stuff) and could enjoy tons of spare time otherwise consumed by evolutionary fixing v1 (yes, evolution works quite well, but neither easy nor the best way things could be done).
Just my two cents...
Best regards, ladis