On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 6:31 PM Daniel Walker <danielwa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. Which arch/platform upstream does both prepend and append at the same time? > 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. I didn't say it couldn't be done. In fact, I said it would be better all at once: "it would be better to not change the options twice" But both of you ignoring comments and continuing to post competing series is not going to get us there. TBC, I think Christophe's series is much closer to being in shape to merge upstream. > 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. Features do get implemented all the time on one arch. And then maybe a 2nd and 3rd. At some point we decide no more copying, it needs to be common and refactored. We're at that point for cmdline handling IMO. Rob
