Re: [U-Boot] [ANNOUNCE] Kconfig support
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Sascha Hauer sha@pengutronix.de wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 11:20:50AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 20 April 2009 10:53:39 Robert Schwebel wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:42:08AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
U-Boot-v2 is used here to do real work in our projects. If it isn't what you need, it is perfectly fine if you ignore it.
my concern isnt really narrow to the Blackfin port. i was using it as a practical example. we've talked about v2 in the past as the answer to many of our problems and so we dont bother doing it in v1. but that approach looks to be wrong as v2 is of little practical importance. instead we should be doing what Jean-Christophe is doing: poaching good ideas until we get to the point where v2 can simply die.
If you mean "you" while saying "we", then yes, it may be correct that this is your plan. "We" don't have any plans to let v2 die.
Should we be mindful of the future? But not at the expense of the moment. Be mindful of the living Force, my young Padawan.
i never said "kill it now"; quite the opposite really. in fact, it looks like you really arent taking your own saying to heart. my point is to look to the future and stop wasting resources. if v1 incorporates all the features of v2, then v2 has no purpose at all except to split development and waste peoples time.
Well as you said at the moment there is not much community around u-boot-v2, so it's basically *our* time which we waste, and we are free to do so. At the moment it seems you're wasting *your* time by warming up this stupid discussion which Jerry already led to a nice ending.
Indeed. Let this thread die. There is nothing wrong with v2 going off and trying something new.
g.
On Monday 20 April 2009 11:39:52 Grant Likely wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Sascha Hauer wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 11:20:50AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 20 April 2009 10:53:39 Robert Schwebel wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:42:08AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
U-Boot-v2 is used here to do real work in our projects. If it isn't what you need, it is perfectly fine if you ignore it.
my concern isnt really narrow to the Blackfin port. i was using it as a practical example. we've talked about v2 in the past as the answer to many of our problems and so we dont bother doing it in v1. but that approach looks to be wrong as v2 is of little practical importance. instead we should be doing what Jean-Christophe is doing: poaching good ideas until we get to the point where v2 can simply die.
If you mean "you" while saying "we", then yes, it may be correct that this is your plan. "We" don't have any plans to let v2 die.
Should we be mindful of the future? But not at the expense of the moment. Be mindful of the living Force, my young Padawan.
i never said "kill it now"; quite the opposite really. in fact, it looks like you really arent taking your own saying to heart. my point is to look to the future and stop wasting resources. if v1 incorporates all the features of v2, then v2 has no purpose at all except to split development and waste peoples time.
Well as you said at the moment there is not much community around u-boot-v2, so it's basically *our* time which we waste, and we are free to do so. At the moment it seems you're wasting *your* time by warming up this stupid discussion which Jerry already led to a nice ending.
Indeed. Let this thread die. There is nothing wrong with v2 going off and trying something new.
no one said otherwise. please read the thread context before chiming in. if you had, you'd know that i was taking issue with the position of "let's not do XXX in v1 because it exists in v2", not "wtf does v2 exist". -mike
Mike Frysinger wrote:
no one said otherwise. please read the thread context before chiming in. if you had, you'd know that i was taking issue with the position of "let's not do XXX in v1 because it exists in v2",
I don't recall anyone advocating that position, other than your original inquiry ("i thought this was one of the points of u-boot-2?").
You seem to be arguing with yourself. :-)
-Scott
On Monday 20 April 2009 14:42:24 Scott Wood wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
no one said otherwise. please read the thread context before chiming in. if you had, you'd know that i was taking issue with the position of "let's not do XXX in v1 because it exists in v2",
I don't recall anyone advocating that position, other than your original inquiry ("i thought this was one of the points of u-boot-2?").
You seem to be arguing with yourself. :-)
most recently, it's come up with (previous) kconfig/kbuild and the clock changes. people (myself included) were hesitant to undertake big tasks by virtue of v2 already solving it. so yes, i am in effect invalidating my previous stances and in the process, attempting to elicit/vet other people's opinions. seems we're all up to speed now though. -mike
participants (3)
-
Grant Likely -
Mike Frysinger -
Scott Wood