Dear Wolfgang, thanks for your prompt feedback.
On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 10:18:39AM +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > > > > 2) I have submitted two rounds of our patches (with about one year in > > between those two instances), and I have the feeling that the > > interest in even commenting to those patches was quite low. This is > > not very encouraging for further submissions. > > Please don't mistake missing feedback for missing interest. There *is* > interest in your patches, and care will be taken that your patches get > processed as they should. Promised. > > We do habe an ARM custodian problem that needs to be solved soon, but > this affects all ARM contriobutions, not only yours. So please don;t > take it personally. I know the problem, both specifically and general to FOSS projects, as I have worked in many of them ;) So I know it isn't personally, but then also I personally don't think that my patches are more important than anyone elses... > > 1) the s3c24xx chipset family support in u-boot is minimal and outdated. > > It's outdated because nobody feeds back patches. This is a chicekn > and egg situation, and if you work on this platform it's you who > could solve it. yes and no. > > do some extensive re-work. Since there seems to be nobody who cares > > a lot about that family of chips (most products based on them, even > > if they run linux, don't use u-boot), I see quite a bit of reluctance > > to merge those patches. Furthermore, I have zero clue if there still > > I am not reluctant. Please go on and post patches. U-Boot will not > spread if we don;t use it, or if we don;t make our changes available > to the public. I agree that at least the core s3c24xx stuff should go mainline, no question about that. > Pther users of such processors will not use U-Boot *because* support > for these chips is "minimal and outdated". that's true. btw: Samsung is now shipping some (old, outdated) fork of u-boot with their later smdk2443 and smdk6400 boards. Obviously the code is neither clean nor suitable for submission, nor was it ever even submitted :( But 2443 and 6400 are beyond what openmoko has done so far anyway, so this is not competing. > > is any living person out there who is trying to run u-boot on a > > s3c2400, and we certainly have no way of testing whether the new code > > This is wrong. There is tens of thousands of systems running in the > field. yes. I was thinking of 'people who develop new products and are looking for a bootloader'. The 2400 is discontinued for quite some time... > > breaks any of the old code. It has actually come to a point where > > I'd volunteer to maintain the s3c24xx chipset code in u-boot, if > > anyone was interested in that > > You are welcome. Is this a serious offer? I think it might help to > solve at least some parts of the ARM dilemma we're in. I'm serious about this, yes. At least for 2410/2440/2442, I have quite extensive experience after all the hacking at OpenMoko. I'm familiar with the smdk2410, qt2410, smdk2440, qt2440, neo1973_gta01 (s3c2410), neo1973_gta02 (s3c2442b) and hxd8 (s3c2440) boards, and I can contribute board support for all those to u-boot. I'm also in contact with what Ben Dooks (Linux s3c24xx maintainer) is doing on the mainline kernel side. > > 2) Some of the changes, notably the sd/mmc driver for s3c24xx was > > rejected by the u-boot list, since it just does what everyone else > > does: no shared host controller code, just copy+paste the bits that > > the other sd/mmc controllers do. While I understand that there is a > > need for a shared sd/mmc code, putting the burden of creating such > > code on us is just too much. With this kind of requirement you will > > unlikely to see anyone merge another sd/mmc controller driver into > > u-boot, since everyone evades creating the generic/common code. This > > is not pure laziness, but inexperience with the code and lack of > > access to all the different hardware > > Well, someone has to go ahead... yes, of course. But you need somebody who is voluntarily committed to doing a generic sd/mmc stack for u-boot. It's no use to try to push/force people who have only the time to write a host controlelr driver into doing it ;) Ok. Give me a bit of time, and I'll do another round of s3c24xx/openmoko/neo1973 related patch submissions. Cheers, -- - Harald Welte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://openmoko.org/ ============================================================================ Software for the world's first truly open Free Software mobile phone ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ U-Boot-Users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users
