Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:0OR3jKkQkEUngZc1jpNFK2fPV1rpDfN3imdD5ilNYBxZY6Wkvu
 ql9c516TbfjjENVHY83f2BIrCHW3PA9ZhziLNhWIuKdg/gpWeuMcVe/ZLvqgeQeRHW2+ZB2c
 5bGZRWJ8b3CTFB4PrSwA79KNo4xcnCzabAv5a7815IbSVHL55t9B14DAHzKDwUeCBjCYAiHJ
 SRouprzgDARV0tYs62BmYIUoH4zrWhqLvcbRELHBIh4gWV5AnJ1JfBDxOa0h0COgkg/Z4e9w
 H+/zDR1+GKr+y8jiTRzXbU6I5b3OH808JZCNaX4/JlTQnEu0KPeJlrXaGEsXQTpuyigWxa6e
 XkklMHI9l57W/XcyWOhSbVnyPk0Doo9hbZuDmlvUc=
Date:   Tue, 30 Mar 2021 16:31:37 -0700
From:   Daniel Walker <danielwa@cisco.com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Cc:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Gimpelevich <daniel@gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        "open list:MIPS" <linux-mips@vger.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        xe-linux-external@cisco.com, Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] powerpc: convert config files to generic cmdline
Message-ID: <20210330233137.GB2469518@zorba>
References: <20210309000247.2989531-4-danielwa@cisco.com>
 <5f865584-09c9-d21f-ffb7-23cf07cf058e@csgroup.eu>
 <20210309212944.GR109100@zorba>
 <e4899874-1684-fa1b-443e-f4e478e05e31@csgroup.eu>
 <CAL_JsqKm76jRQYDcu3rGyUWKPLspoO=EZW_WFy=zAK+m_JYCTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20fd7d44-8c39-48bc-25c3-990be9d9d911@csgroup.eu>
 <20210325195956.GM109100@zorba>
 <CAL_Jsq+10nucQSRkrTKe9BD5wBScqEb7-Rdg=9TsPiKuiuPG7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210330173254.GS109100@zorba>
 <CAL_JsqJKBeAgaHQJwOL9G2qLbQSh32L5LtN+cSUgn5sV_P8How@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAL_JsqJKBeAgaHQJwOL9G2qLbQSh32L5LtN+cSUgn5sV_P8How@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

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@cisco.com> 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@cisco.com> 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