[U-Boot] BOOT_DELAY broken
OK, it is broken in last commit. Totally broken.
I can NOT get my custom board to stop at all. "CONFIG_BOOTDELAY=3" added to my board defconfig doesn't change anything. Even changing default to 3 from 0 in common/Kconfig doesn't help.
Putting "CONFIG_BOOTDELAY 3" in my board config in /include/configs makes gcc to output a whole lot of warning that it is redefined but it _DOES_ work.
I do NOT have time chasing this -- I'm in firefighting mode now with 14 hours workdays because of this Tuesday deadline -- but guys, WTF!?
I could understand somebody submitting such a stupid patch affecting _HUNDREDS_ of boards without thinking of consequences but why had it been accepted and applied to uboot-master right away? There are other things that are broken and won't compile but trivial one-line patches fixing that breakage are silently ignored but such a enormous screwup leaving holes all over is accepted right away without any checking...
Please do _NOT_ make such things any more. And if you do care please take my vehement NACK to this entire thing. I suggest it would be better to rollback that patch in its entirety -- there is too much work to fix the damage and there is absolutely no reason for this change at all in the first place.
Sorry for ranting but I simply could not stand it...
--- ****************************************************************** * KSI@home KOI8 Net < > The impossible we do immediately. * * Las Vegas NV, USA < > Miracles require 24-hour notice. * ******************************************************************
On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 02:19:50PM -0700, Sergey Kubushyn wrote:
OK, it is broken in last commit. Totally broken.
I can NOT get my custom board to stop at all. "CONFIG_BOOTDELAY=3" added to my board defconfig doesn't change anything. Even changing default to 3 from 0 in common/Kconfig doesn't help.
Putting "CONFIG_BOOTDELAY 3" in my board config in /include/configs makes gcc to output a whole lot of warning that it is redefined but it _DOES_ work.
I do NOT have time chasing this -- I'm in firefighting mode now with 14 hours workdays because of this Tuesday deadline -- but guys, WTF!?
Hmm, using moving target for any deadline doesn't seem like briliant idea, even for Tuesday one...
I could understand somebody submitting such a stupid patch affecting _HUNDREDS_ of boards without thinking of consequences but why had it been accepted and applied to uboot-master right away? There are other things that are broken and won't compile but trivial one-line patches fixing that breakage are silently ignored but such a enormous screwup leaving holes all over is accepted right away without any checking...
Please do _NOT_ make such things any more. And if you do care please take my vehement NACK to this entire thing. I suggest it would be better to rollback that patch in its entirety -- there is too much work to fix the damage and there is absolutely no reason for this change at all in the first place.
...anyway, you still have two days left, so either rollback or read "[PATCH v2 0/5] Urgent fixes for misconverted CONFIG_BOOTDELAY" and following (it also contains rants, but a bit more constructive)
Sorry for ranting but I simply could not stand it...
best regards, ladis (in hope you are feeling better now)
Dear Sergey,
In message alpine.LFD.2.20.1606121324330.17506@maverick.koi8.net you wrote:
OK, it is broken in last commit. Totally broken.
So what? Shit happens. Calm down, it's only ones and zeroes.
I do NOT have time chasing this -- I'm in firefighting mode now with 14 hours workdays because of this Tuesday deadline -- but guys, WTF!?
Nobody asked you to fix that. And that deadline thing is your problem, not ours, right? So please don't offload your frustration and stress to others.
I could understand somebody submitting such a stupid patch affecting _HUNDREDS_ of boards without thinking of consequences but why had it been accepted and applied to uboot-master right away? There are other things that are broken and won't compile but trivial one-line patches fixing that breakage are silently ignored but such a enormous screwup leaving holes all over is accepted right away without any checking...
Who says "without checking"? As far as I know this patch has passed buildman compile tests, plus runtime tests on all boards available to the poster (which is more than the average developer has).
Please do _NOT_ make such things any more. And if you do care please take my vehement NACK to this entire thing. I suggest it would be better to rollback that patch in its entirety -- there is too much work to fix the damage and there is absolutely no reason for this change at all in the first place.
Wrong approach. If there are such obscure dependencies in U-Boot code they SHOULD be cleaned up. And yes, this can - and will - occasionally cause temporary breakage, sometimes even in a large scale. But bugs are for fixing. Bad code needs to be improved, not to be conservated and never touched. I strongly recommend to sort out the remaining issues and fix the problems instead of ignoring them. Papering over known issues has never been a clever idea.
Sorry for ranting but I simply could not stand it...
I can understand your frustration, especially when working under stress. But eventually you may want to re-read your posting, think about the tone which sounds extremely aggressive and insulting to me, and then - maybe? - apologize to Heiko?
Thanks.
Wolfgang Denk
participants (3)
-
Ladislav Michl -
Sergey Kubushyn -
Wolfgang Denk