Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] MIPS: TXx9: Convert SPI platform data to software nodes

[Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>]

On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 01:30:17PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 1:21 PM Thomas Bogendoerfer
> <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 01:16:22PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 11:58 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 11:23 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > > > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > In order to get rid of legacy platform data in AT25 driver,
> > > > > convert its users to use software nodes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Suggested-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> > > >
> > > > This looks good to me, thanks for cleaning this up! I think Geert has this
> > > > hardware, adding him to Cc in case he wants to give it a spin.
> > >
> > > The SPI controller is only present on TX4938, not on TX4927, so it is
> > > unused on my rbtx4927 board.
> > >
> > > > >  arch/mips/include/asm/txx9/spi.h    |  4 ++--
> > > > >  arch/mips/txx9/generic/spi_eeprom.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++------------
> > > > >  arch/mips/txx9/rbtx4938/setup.c     |  6 +++---
> > > > >  3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > Probably all of this can be removed, given the SPI controller driver
> > > itself was removed in commit 74523a5dae0c96d6 ("spi: txx9: Remove
> > > driver")?
> >
> > are you ok with completly removing rbtx4938 support ? Can I rbtx4939
> > board support, too ?
> 
> Fine for me, I only have rbtx4927.
> 
> BTW, I'm using it in 32-bit mode, as the VxWorks bootloader cannot boot
> 64-bit images. Are there other boards with such a limitation? Perhaps
> there's even shim support for booting 64-bit kernels on such boards,
> so I can test both 32-bit and 64-bit kernels?

maybe BOOT_ELF32 could help here.

Thomas.

-- 
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]