[PATCH 2/3 Try#2] NOR Flash Support (U-Boot env)
laforge at openmoko.org
Tue Dec 25 11:28:02 CET 2007
On Mon, Dec 24, 2007 at 03:32:33PM +0000, Andy Green wrote:
> Somebody in the thread at some point said:
> > On Mon, Dec 24, 2007 at 10:11:28AM +0000, Andy Green wrote:
> >> If the kernel that devirginator drops in the device on GTA-01 also has
> >> the NOR patch, it will create a (useless, but logically present) MTD
> >> device representing the (IIRC, on GTA-01 nonexistent) NOR device's
> >> footprint and make the partitions match up. The MTD ROM support should
> >> accept it despite the Flash probe would fail, so it is one way to get a
> >> unified behaviour.
> > this is not good. Since GTA01 is already deployed, I think it will
> > generate a nightmare for updating and compatibility. GTA01 partition
> > tables have to be as-is.
> Fine. This is actually compatible with the release/backport thing I
Go and ask the community. I do not think they will be happy if they are
treated as second-class citizens with some volunteers backporting stuff
that OM (the company) does.
OM has to live up to its own promises.
Also, be assured that maintaining two kernel/uboot (and even rootfs?)
codebases i.e. forking the code will create a maintenance nightmare and
way more work further down the road.
That's exactly why people want to merge their code into the 'mainline'
tree. Avoid fragmentation. Keeping multiple trees in sync is an
utterly boring and dull task. A neverending one, too.
> >> We could treat the GTA-01 low level software like kernel, U-Boot and
> >> devirginator (I guess generally usermode code doesn't care much what it
> >> runs on) as "released" for GTA-01 and instead of trying to target -01
> >> and -02 for new development work -- which focuses on a GTA-02 that can
> >> go to production -- we find or fund a guy interested to manage
> >> backporting newer GTA-02 work on to a "stable" GTA-01 tree -- it's a bit
> >> like the 2.6 stable branch kernel maintainer.
> > I don't think this is acceptable. People bought GTA01 in the
> "acceptable" for whom is a cogent question here.
acceptable to my own expectations how a company/project that 'knows
better what to not do' will treat its most valuable first customers.
> Absolutely, no reason the patches can't be used by GTA-01. But it seems
> the customer will not be making GTA-01s.
poeple are devirginating their devices as a last-resort if they are
bricked. This is even more important on GTA01 (no nor emergency boot)
than on GTA02.
- Harald Welte <laforge at openmoko.org> http://openmoko.org/
Software for the world's first truly open Free Software mobile phone
More information about the openmoko-uboot