Hi Tim and all,

I'd like to know what ever happened to the "Boot U-Boot from UBI
volume" proposal,
as it seemed a very interesting project.

Currently I'm working in a product with a _very_ long-life, yet based
in NAND flash,
and so I would have considered the ability to have the bootloader in a
bad block aware
device very appealing.

... and in the same vein, I would really appreciate to have some
status information about each
proposed project. Something that tells us if it was rejected (and
maybe some useful reasons
for rejection as feedback?) and/or accepted.

On the other side, maybe this is too much to ask? ;-)

Thanks a lot!
--
Ezequiel García, VanguardiaSur
www.vanguardiasur.com.ar

Dear Ezequiel,

In message <CAAEAJfCY4__aqzT-iyCBSGeUDn36Jn7MY+KPFECv=YdYZ5U9Wg@...> you wrote:

I'd like to know what ever happened to the "Boot U-Boot from UBI
volume" proposal,
as it seemed a very interesting project.

Since the proposal was made, U-Boot has developed a lot; especially the
SPL framework is now a well-supported standard feature. This will
make it easier to implement the proposed features, but to the best of
my knowledgt this has still not been done yet.

Currently I'm working in a product with a _very_ long-life, yet based
in NAND flash,
and so I would have considered the ability to have the bootloader in a
bad block aware
device very appealing.

I think many users are not really aware of the specific properties of
NAND flashbased memory, or they push aside such concerns. In most
cases (like short-living or little-used consumer devices) this works
fine, resp. other errors pop up so much more frequently that this
problem receives no real attention.

Please feel free to contact me if you are interested in deeper
details.

... and in the same vein, I would really appreciate to have some
status information about each
proposed project. Something that tells us if it was rejected (and
maybe some useful reasons
for rejection as feedback?) and/or accepted.

Indeed that would be interesting information.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@...
Quote from the Boss after overriding the decision of a task force he
created to find a solution: "I'm sorry if I ever gave you the
impression your input would have any effect on my decision for the
outcome of this project!"

============= start of quoted message ================
On Tuesday, November 19, 2013 2:42 PM, Ezequiel García wrote:

I'd like to know what ever happened to the "Boot U-Boot from UBI
volume" proposal,
as it seemed a very interesting project.

Currently I'm working in a product with a _very_ long-life, yet based
in NAND flash,
and so I would have considered the ability to have the bootloader in a
bad block aware
device very appealing.

... and in the same vein, I would really appreciate to have some
status information about each
proposed project. Something that tells us if it was rejected (and
maybe some useful reasons
for rejection as feedback?) and/or accepted.

On the other side, maybe this is too much to ask? ;-)

Sorry for the slow response. I had hoped to be able to
announce the results of the voting actually during the week
of ELC Europe (back in October). However, there were
some delays and the final vote hasn't yet completed.

We usually do a pretty poor job of announcing the results
of our evaluation. This time is no different. While I can't
announce yet which projects were selected (because the
CE workgroup voting is not finalized yet), I can at least shed
a little light on a few that are out of the running.

This will not be comprehensive, because I don't have time today
to talk about all the proposals. But in general, the UBIFS proposals
were not rated highly by the Architecture Group. The main reason
for this was that a lot of companies (at least companies with a vote
in the CE WG Architecture Group) appear to be moving
away from using raw NAND. Hence, UBIFS is less strategic to
develop for in the long run. Note that this only reflects the interests
of "consumer electronics" requirements, and (maybe) not the trends
in the general embedded Linux industry in general.

Of the UBIFS-related proposals, only the robustness testing/fixes
proposal is still being considered for sponsorship.

When the voting is complete, which should be by the end of the month,
I'll try to find some time to provide more detail about individual proposals
and why they were accepted or rejected.
-- Tim

Dear Tim,

In message <F5184659D418E34EA12B1903EE5EF5FDB2141337C3@...> you wrote:

This will not be comprehensive, because I don't have time today
to talk about all the proposals. But in general, the UBIFS proposals
were not rated highly by the Architecture Group. The main reason
for this was that a lot of companies (at least companies with a vote
in the CE WG Architecture Group) appear to be moving
away from using raw NAND. Hence, UBIFS is less strategic to
develop for in the long run. Note that this only reflects the interests
of "consumer electronics" requirements, and (maybe) not the trends
in the general embedded Linux industry in general.

I agree with this assessment. The typical requirements (like product
life time, perfective maintenance etc.) for consumer electronics
products is very much different from the requirements from embedded
systems for example in the automation industry, where product
lifetimes are often more than an order higher than for typical
consumer electronics" devices. This obviously results in differing
priorities. It's perfectly reasonable (but still a pity) that the
members of the Consumer Electronics Linux Forum support their own
needs first.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@...
"Tell the truth and run." - Yugoslav proverb

Hello Tim,


On 22 November 2013 17:02, Bird, Tim <Tim.Bird@...> wrote:

============= start of quoted message ================
On Tuesday, November 19, 2013 2:42 PM, Ezequiel García wrote:

I'd like to know what ever happened to the "Boot U-Boot from UBI
volume" proposal,
as it seemed a very interesting project.

Currently I'm working in a product with a _very_ long-life, yet based
in NAND flash,
and so I would have considered the ability to have the bootloader in a
bad block aware
device very appealing.

... and in the same vein, I would really appreciate to have some
status information about each
proposed project. Something that tells us if it was rejected (and
maybe some useful reasons
for rejection as feedback?) and/or accepted.

On the other side, maybe this is too much to ask? ;-)

Sorry for the slow response. I had hoped to be able to
announce the results of the voting actually during the week
of ELC Europe (back in October). However, there were
some delays and the final vote hasn't yet completed.

[..]

Of the UBIFS-related proposals, only the robustness testing/fixes
proposal is still being considered for sponsorship.

Thanks for this information.

When the voting is complete, which should be by the end of the month,
I'll try to find some time to provide more detail about individual proposals
and why they were accepted or rejected.

Thanks, that would be great!
Maybe you can write a short status mail to this list, and I can take
care of adding such information to each proposal's page on elinux's wiki.

--
Ezequiel García, VanguardiaSur
www.vanguardiasur.com.ar

On Monday, December 02, 2013 12:58 PM, Ezequiel García [ezequiel@...] wrote:

On 22 November 2013 17:02, Bird, Tim <Tim.Bird@...> wrote:

Sorry for the slow response. I had hoped to be able to
announce the results of the voting actually during the week
of ELC Europe (back in October). However, there were
some delays and the final vote hasn't yet completed.

[..]

Of the UBIFS-related proposals, only the robustness testing/fixes
proposal is still being considered for sponsorship.

Thanks for this information.

When the voting is complete, which should be by the end of the month,
I'll try to find some time to provide more detail about individual proposals
and why they were accepted or rejected.

Thanks, that would be great!
Maybe you can write a short status mail to this list, and I can take
care of adding such information to each proposal's page on elinux's wiki.

Ezequiel,

That would be great. I have prepared some information that I will be posting
to the list shortly. If you could add the information to each proposal's page
I think it could be useful for future submissions.
-- Tim