<html><body><p><tt><font size="2">> >> On Jun 17, 2020, at 4:54 AM, Klaus Heinrich Kiwi <br>> <klaus@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:<br>> >><br>> >>> On 6/17/2020 4:58 AM, Joel Stanley wrote:<br>> >>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 05:38, Paul Menzel<br>> >>>> <pmenzel+openpower-firmware@molgen.mpg.de> wrote:<br>> >>>> It looks like they are held up due to failing in IBM internal build<br>> >>>> environment. Can that internal environment be integrated into the public<br>> >>>> CI infrastructure?<br>> >>> If the reason we can't merge is internal CI fails to build, won't that<br>> >>> same internal CI fail to build if we remove Power8 from the tree and<br>> >>> update to the newer compilers?<br>> >><br>> >> I think Dean and Dan can better comment on this, but my take is <br>> that the Hostboot team<br>> >> (as well as SBE, OCC etc) have a Power8 branch, on which we based<br>> several of our products,<br>> >> and they're maintaining that branch as those products still <br>> require them. Since those are<br>> >> long-term products in "fixes" mode only, they'd prefer not to <br>> change the toolchain<br>> >> from underneath it, adding risk to existing products using them <br>> and essentially having<br>> >> to re-validate all of them end-to-end.<br>> > <br>> > That should have nothing to do with upstream master though.<br>> <br>> Fact is that our op-build master still depends on that -p8 branch<br>> <br>> > <br>> > I’d also note that the try-cflag patch that Joel proposed (a <br>> cherry pick of my four year old patch) would solve this problem anyway.<br>> <br>> I guess even Cherry-picking those are considered to be requiring <br>> extensive testing in the -p8 branch.<br>> Existing products in maintenance mode are not wanting to mess with <br>> their toolchains, specially due to a demand outside<br>> those product's scope.<br></font></tt><br><tt><font size="2">For the areas that IBM isn't willing to actively maintain (ie updating </font></tt><br><tt><font size="2">the compiler for P8) I'd rather let the community take over maintenance</font></tt><br><tt><font size="2">and not eliminate the branch. The benefits of the internal CI would be</font></tt><br><tt><font size="2">lost -- but the branch would still be usable/maintainable by the </font></tt><br><tt><font size="2">community. Klaus, lets work with the internal IBM teams to figure</font></tt><br><tt><font size="2">out a solution that is acceptable to both the community and IBM.</font></tt><br><br><tt><font size="2">> <br>> <br>> >>> I can't see the downside to merging these patches in. There's no<br>> >>> guarantee of support or testing, but it allows folks like Paul to<br>> >>> still build from master, and take advantage of updates to skiboot,<br>> >>> buildroot and Linux.<br>> >><br>> >><br>> >> I believe it would require the HB, OCC, SBE teams etc to perform <br>> "a branch of a branch",<br>> >> i.e., continue to maintain the branch in which we have products <br>> still in service,<br>> >> while creating a new branch, that sits somewhere in between <br>> "hostboot-p8" and<br>> >> "hostboot-master", that is able to drive the Power8 chip while <br>> still tolerating newer<br>> >> compilers and toolchains (and new features?).<br>> > <br>> > Hostboot master is wildly different from Hostboot master-p8.<br>> > <br>> > We’re talking a dozen patches here.<br>> <br>> I guess one or a hundred patches, it's the concept that is being <br>> discussed here. I believe our group within<br>> IBM is in practice not equipped to maintain another -p8-derivate <br>> branch, in addition to -p8 itself and master.<br>> <br>> I played around with that "Alternate Toolchain" PRs exactly for that<br>> reason, but even if we could use that mechanism,<br>> I don't think we'd have anyone from IBM maintaining the -p8-derivatebranches.<br>> <br>> > I’d almost encourage the community just to maintain branches <br>> ourselves, it’d be less work. IBM can pull if it wants, but perhaps <br>> it’s time to just have open power branches.<br>> > <br>> > I also wonder if this pattern is about to be repeated with P9, as <br>> it has a much larger installed base out in a broader community what <br>> with the availability of the Raptor boxes.<br>> > <br>> <br>> This pattern is very likely to repeat for P9, yes.<br></font></tt><br><tt><font size="2">Agree as well -- and we should figure out a way to transition to the </font></tt><br><tt><font size="2">community as well (when the time comes). P8 will be a good way to </font></tt><br><tt><font size="2">work out the kinks.</font></tt><br><br><font size="2">Dean Sanner<br>dsanner@us.ibm.com<br></font><BR>
</body></html>