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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
 <20210330233137.GB2469518@zorba>
In-Reply-To: <20210330233137.GB2469518@zorba>
From:   Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 1 Apr 2021 15:08:04 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL_JsqL8bJrxnJgs4doQ0L7YTF0vrDZLOoPOBdJzwTgMhXm-dw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] powerpc: convert config files to generic cmdline
To:     Daniel Walker <danielwa@cisco.com>
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 6:31 PM Daniel Walker <danielwa@cisco.com> 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@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.

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