New test for patches in openbmc/openbmc

[Ed Tanous]

On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 7:49 PM John Broadbent <jebr at google.com> wrote:
>
> I am concerned this change will encourage both patches in private layers, and forks of the entire project.
>
> Oskar is right, patches should be temporary fixes, but I have worked around, and some organizations never clean up their "temporary fixes". Their engineers move from one fire to the next. I suppose, I would prefer to see .patch files in openbmc meta layers rather than have the same .patch file pushed to a private layer, or worse a fork of openbmc.

This is some of the conflict though, why should OpenBMC have to
maintain other companies' temporary fixes that they didn't find
important enough to clean up and make usable to others?  If the goal
is just to host it, there's a million places to host forks for free
these days.  I like to think getting patches upstreamed implies some
level of quality, some level of acceptance, and most importantly, the
idea that I can go and make any modifications to the code I need to
make to support my own OpenBMC.  Patches generally don't allow for
that.

>
> Where can I get some more context on why .patch files are disallowed from open bmc meta layers?

#1 and #2 here:
https://github.com/openbmc/docs/blob/master/meta-layer-guidelines.md

>
> I genuinely appreciate all their effort and hard work the maintainer put in. They have always guided the community in the right direction, but some more context for this decision might be helpful for new people, such as myself.

There's no "decision" being made here, this is just making CI enforce
the things that are already written down.  If we wanted to change the
guidelines, we could, but that would be a different discussion,
ideally in a gerrit docs review proposing the change.  The initial
goal of this CI change was to reduce the turnaround time to getting
new platforms supported on OpenBMC.  The more things like that we can
codify in CI, the faster we can get patches merged to master.  With
that said, I like that it's causing some excellent discussions to
manifest.


Ps, Try to avoid top posting, it's less than desired on this list :)

>
> Thank you
> John Broadbent
>
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 4:36 PM Oskar Senft <osk at google.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Alexander
>>
>> While I can understand your position, I think there's a bigger picture
>> to consider. In my understanding Open Source works by individual /
>> independent contributors providing their use cases, knowledge and
>> experience by means of designs and source code to the world. Since
>> there are many individuals trying to do different things and some
>> people (maintainers) being the gatekeepers for what can be submitted,
>> it of course often gets to a point where not everyone agrees.
>>
>> Trust me, I've been there. I had many occasions where I needed a new
>> feature or a fix to satisfy project requirements and timelines and was
>> not able to upstream it in the given time. I sometimes gave up, often
>> found a different, "better" solution and many times worked with the
>> community to find a solution that would be accepted upstream.
>>
>> While I agree that deadlines and requirements do not always allow to
>> go the "everything upstream immediately" route, my experience has
>> shown me that forks or patches are ultimately costing more than using
>> clean upstream code, in particular if a device is to be supported for
>> years through new versions of the upstream code.
>>
>> As an example, we've been using an i2c sensor chip that needs to be
>> configured at runtime. Upstream support for that was (still is)
>> missing. The patch to do that specifically for us was 1 line -
>> literally. However, it's incredibly difficult to discover and
>> understand this one line years later. Together with hwmon maintainers
>> I've spent the last 2 weeks designing and implementing various
>> versions of a generic solution that we hope can be used for other
>> hwmon drivers. I understand that I'm in a fortunate position so I can
>> spend that time. But I still need to justify to my manager and myself
>> why it's worth it, which I believe I can.
>>
>> In my experience, having patches checked in is just that - a temporary
>> patch - not a solution. From Oxford's dictionary: "to patch: treat
>> someone's injuries or repair the damage to something, especially
>> hastily" (I know there's also a definition of the noun in the realm of
>> computing).
>>
>> So while I agree that not allowing patches is actually making things
>> harder for some in the short term, I truly believe that it's going to
>> make things better for everyone in the long term.
>>
>> Oskar.
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 5:03 AM Alexander Amelkin <a.amelkin at yadro.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Ed!
>> >
>> > Most patches you listed (at least those for YADRO) are
>> > platform specific and no repository will accept them for
>> > a general audience.
>> >
>> > No vendor, I'm confident, is willing to spend endless time
>> > persuading maintainers to include vendor-specific or
>> > platform-specific patches into their repositories.
>> >
>> > For instance,
>> > meta-yadro/recipes-phosphor/ipmi/phosphor-ipmi-host/0002-Add-support-for-boot-initiator-mailbox.patch
>> > is there because our customers demand this feature and we failed
>> > proving to openbmc maintainers that this is a needed feature
>> > and not a "security threat" or something. We honestly tried for months.
>> >
>> > On the other hand,
>> > meta-yadro/meta-nicole/recipes-bsp/u-boot/files/0004-aspeed-add-bmc-position-support.patch
>> > is strictly hardware-specific and is not needed as is for other
>> > vendors or platforms, and we don't have time to make it a
>> > generic solution. If we ever do have that time, we will surely
>> > push the developed generic solution to the appropriate
>> > repository.
>> >
>> > What you propose now will force vendors to move farther away
>> > from upstream and create their own forks of openbmc where
>> > they will not even try to upstream their changes and will just drift
>> > farther and farther away.
>> >
>> > Is that what you really pursue or did I get your idea wrong?
>> > So far it looks to me like a destructive decision.
>> >
>> > WBR, Alexander.
>> >
>> > 22.09.2021 01:35, Ed Tanous пишет:
>> > > A few new features have been merged into CI that will now disallow
>> > > .patch files within most meta layers.  This is due to a significant
>> > > number of them popping up in both reviews and in the repo itself,
>> > > despite having documented rules to the contrary.  The hope here is to
>> > > better codify our rules, and give very quick response to submitters
>> > > about the right procedure so we can encourage getting patches in
>> > > faster, and keep machines buildable against master.  As the patches
>> > > state, meta-phosphor is still allowed to contain patch files as an
>> > > escape hatch, if the community decides it's required.
>> > >
>> > > The patchsets in question are here:
>> > > https://gerrit.openbmc-project.xyz/q/repotest
>> > >
>> > > And add some ability for us to make more of these expectations for
>> > > meta layers codified in the future.
>> > >
>> > > The script itself is here:
>> > > https://github.com/openbmc/openbmc/blob/master/meta-phosphor/scripts/run-repotest.sh
>> > > and is runnable on any tree prior to submitting to CI.  We currently
>> > > have the following patches in meta layers.
>> > >
>> > > meta-amd/meta-ethanolx/recipes-x86/chassis/x86-power-control/0001-Amd-power-control-modifications-for-EthanolX.patch
>> > > meta-ampere/meta-common/recipes-devtools/mtd/mtd-utils/0001-flashcp-support-offset-option.patch
>> > > meta-ampere/meta-jade/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-aspeed/0001-aspeed-scu-Switch-PWM-pin-to-GPIO-input-mode.patch
>> > > meta-ampere/meta-jade/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-aspeed/0002-aspeed-Disable-internal-PD-resistors-for-GPIOs.patch
>> > > meta-ampere/meta-jade/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-aspeed/0003-aspeed-support-passing-system-reset-status-to-kernel.patch
>> > > meta-ampere/meta-jade/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-aspeed/0004-aspeed-add-gpio-support.patch
>> > > meta-ampere/meta-jade/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-aspeed/0005-aspeed-Enable-SPI-master-mode.patch
>> > > meta-ampere/meta-jade/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-aspeed/0006-aspeed-support-Mt.Jade-platform-init.patch
>> > > meta-aspeed/recipes-bsp/u-boot/files/default-gcc.patch
>> > > meta-bytedance/meta-g220a/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-aspeed/0001-bytedance-g220a-Enable-ipmb.patch
>> > > meta-bytedance/meta-g220a/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-aspeed/0003-misc-aspeed-Add-Aspeed-UART-routing-control-driver.patch
>> > > meta-bytedance/meta-g220a/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-aspeed/0004-ARM-dts-aspeed-Add-uart-routing-node.patch
>> > > meta-bytedance/meta-g220a/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-aspeed/0005-ARM-dts-aspeed-Enable-g220a-uart-route.patch
>> > > meta-bytedance/meta-g220a/recipes-phosphor/ipmi/phosphor-node-manager-proxy/0001-Remove-Total_Power-sensor.patch
>> > > meta-facebook/meta-bletchley/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-aspeed-sdk/0001-u-boot-ast2600-57600-baudrate-for-bletchley.patch
>> > > meta-facebook/meta-tiogapass/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-aspeed/0001-configs-ast-common-use-57600-baud-rate-to-match-Tiog.patch
>> > > meta-facebook/meta-yosemitev2/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-aspeed/0001-board-aspeed-Add-Mux-for-yosemitev2.patch
>> > > meta-facebook/meta-yosemitev2/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-aspeed/0002-spl-host-console-handle.patch
>> > > meta-google/dynamic-layers/nuvoton-layer/recipes-bsp/images/npcm7xx-igps/0001-Set-FIU0_DRD_CFG-and-FIU_Clk_divider-for-gbmc-hoth.patch
>> > > meta-google/recipes-extended/libconfig/files/0001-conf2struct-Use-the-right-perl.patch
>> > > meta-google/recipes-extended/libconfig/files/0001-makefile-Add-missing-LDFLAGS.patch
>> > > meta-google/recipes-phosphor/initrdscripts/obmc-phosphor-initfs/rwfs-clean-dev.patch
>> > > meta-ingrasys/meta-zaius/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-aspeed/0001-board-aspeed-Add-reset_phy-for-Zaius.patch
>> > > meta-nuvoton/recipes-bsp/images/npcm7xx-igps/0001-Adjust-paths-for-use-with-Bitbake.patch
>> > > meta-yadro/meta-nicole/recipes-bsp/u-boot/files/0001-Add-system-reset-status-support.patch
>> > > meta-yadro/meta-nicole/recipes-bsp/u-boot/files/0002-config-ast-common-set-fieldmode-to-true.patch
>> > > meta-yadro/meta-nicole/recipes-bsp/u-boot/files/0003-aspeed-add-gpio-support.patch
>> > > meta-yadro/meta-nicole/recipes-bsp/u-boot/files/0004-aspeed-add-bmc-position-support.patch
>> > > meta-yadro/meta-nicole/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-aspeed/0001-Add-NCSI-channel-selector.patch
>> > > meta-yadro/meta-nicole/recipes-phosphor/host/op-proc-control/0001-Stop-and-send-SRESET-for-one-thread-only.patch
>> > > meta-yadro/recipes-phosphor/dbus/phosphor-dbus-interfaces/0001-Add-boot-initiator-mailbox-interface.patch
>> > > meta-yadro/recipes-phosphor/ipmi/phosphor-ipmi-host/0001-Add-support-for-persistent-only-settings.patch
>> > > meta-yadro/recipes-phosphor/ipmi/phosphor-ipmi-host/0002-Add-support-for-boot-initiator-mailbox.patch
>> > > meta-yadro/recipes-phosphor/ipmi/phosphor-ipmi-host/0003-Fix-version-parsing-update-AUX-revision-info.patch
>> > >
>> > > If you are a maintainer of these meta layers, please work to get these
>> > > patches submitted to the correct repositories using their prefered
>> > > review (email for linux/u-boot, gerrit for phosphor repos).
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > >
>> > > -Ed