On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 03:13:04PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 12:33 PM Daniel Walker <danielwa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 05:29:44PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 2:00 PM Daniel Walker <danielwa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 01:03:55PM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Ok, so you agree we don't need to provide two CMDLINE, one to be appended and one to be prepended. > > > > > > > > > > Let's only provide once CMDLINE as of today, and ask the user to select > > > > > whether he wants it appended or prepended or replacee. Then no need to > > > > > change all existing config to rename CONFIG_CMDLINE into either of the new > > > > > ones. > > > > > > > > > > That's the main difference between my series and Daniel's series. So I'll > > > > > finish taking Will's comment into account and we'll send out a v3 soon. > > > > > > > > It doesn't solve the needs of Cisco, I've stated many times your changes have > > > > little value. Please stop submitting them. > > > > > > Can you please outline what those needs are which aren't met? > > > > append AND prepend at the same time on all architectures. Christophe doesn't > > understand the need, and hence tries to minimize the feature set which is > > incompatible with Cisco needs and all the other out of tree users. > > Okay, but that's never been a feature in upstream. For upstream, we > refactor first and add features 2nd. In this case, the difference is > largely the kconfig and it would be better to not change the options > twice, but that's not a blocker for taking the refactoring. You won't > find a maintainer that's going to take adding a feature over cleanups > and unification. It kind of is a feature in upstream, it's a matter of opinion. Some platform used append and some use prepend, and it's likely because the maintainers needed one or the other for development. I'm not sure why you think I can't add the features in one go. It would be horrid to take Christophe's changes, then have to do basically all the same work a second time which is what Christophe's changes would force me to do. Say for example I implement this change only on one architecture. In that case the maintainer would be accepting a feature enhancement , but there would be no stopping it. I shouldn't have to go two strokes on one architecture, but each change I'm making is essentially a single architecture. They can go in all together or one at a time. Daniel
