[U-Boot] [PATCH 2/6] nand: Add SPL_NAND support to mxc_nand_spl

[Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>]

Dear Beno?t Th?baudeau,

> Dear Marek Vasut,
> 
> On Friday, April 19, 2013 7:06:39 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] nand: Add SPL_NAND support to mxc_nand_spl
> > 
> > Dear Beno?t Th?baudeau,
> > 
> > > Dear Marek Vasut,
> > > 
> > > On Friday, April 19, 2013 1:14:16 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > Dear Beno?t Th?baudeau,
> > > > 
> > > > > On Friday, April 19, 2013 10:38:48 AM, Beno?t Th?baudeau wrote:
> > > > > > Dear Marek Vasut,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Friday, April 19, 2013 6:10:51 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > > > > Add support for generic NAND SPL via the SPL framework into the
> > > > > > > mxc_nand_spl driver. This is basically just a simple rename and
> > > > > > > publication of the already implemented functions. To avoid the
> > > > > > > old function which are used with the nand_spl/ stuff getting in
> > > > > > > the way of NAND SPL framework, the macro CONFIG_SPL_NAND_LEGACY
> > > > > > > was introduced and two remaining legacy boards were adjusted.
> > > > > > > These board need to be either fixed or removed in the long run,
> > > > > > > but I don't have either.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Also make sure the requested payload is aligned to full pages,
> > > > > > > otherwise this simple driver fails to load the last page.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
> > > > > > > Cc: Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot@aribaud.net>
> > > > > > > Cc: Beno?t Th?baudeau <benoit.thebaudeau@advansee.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@freescale.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: Stefano Babic <sbabic@denx.de>
> > > > > > > Cc: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  drivers/mtd/nand/mxc_nand_spl.c | 13 ++++++++++---
> > > > > > >  include/configs/mx31pdk.h       |  1 +
> > > > > > >  include/configs/tx25.h          |  1 +
> > > > > > >  3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/mxc_nand_spl.c
> > > > > > > b/drivers/mtd/nand/mxc_nand_spl.c
> > > > > > > index 09f23c3..8ff03c9 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/mxc_nand_spl.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/mxc_nand_spl.c
> > > > > > > @@ -290,7 +290,7 @@ static int is_badblock(int pagenumber)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  	return 0;
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > >  }
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > -static int nand_load(unsigned int from, unsigned int size,
> > > > > > > unsigned char *buf)
> > > > > > > +int nand_spl_load_image(uint32_t from, unsigned int size, void
> > > > > > > *buf)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  {
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > >  	int i;
> > > > > > >  	unsigned int page;
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > @@ -303,6 +303,7 @@ static int nand_load(unsigned int from,
> > > > > > > unsigned int size, unsigned char *buf)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  	page = from / CONFIG_SYS_NAND_PAGE_SIZE;
> > > > > > >  	i = 0;
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > +	size = roundup(size, CONFIG_SYS_NAND_PAGE_SIZE);
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  	while (i < size / CONFIG_SYS_NAND_PAGE_SIZE) {
> > > > > > >  	
> > > > > > >  		if (nfc_read_page(page, buf) < 0)
> > > > > > >  		
> > > > > > >  			return -1;
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > @@ -332,6 +333,7 @@ static int nand_load(unsigned int from,
> > > > > > > unsigned int size, unsigned char *buf)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  	return 0;
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > >  }
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SPL_NAND_SUPPORT_LEGACY
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  /*
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > >   * The main entry for NAND booting. It's necessary that SDRAM
> > > > > > >   is already * configured and available since this code loads
> > > > > > >   the main U-Boot image
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > @@ -345,8 +347,9 @@ void nand_boot(void)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  	 * CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_OFFS and
> > > > > > >  	 CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_SIZE must * be aligned to full pages
> > > > > > >  	 */
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > -	if (!nand_load(CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_OFFS,
> > > > > > > CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_SIZE, -		       (uchar
> > > > > > > *)CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_DST)) {
> > > > > > > +	if (!nand_spl_load_image(CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_OFFS,
> > > > > > > +			CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_SIZE,
> > > > > > > +			(uchar *)CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_DST)) {
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  		/* Copy from NAND successful, start U-boot */
> > > > > > >  		uboot = (void *)CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_START;
> > > > > > >  		uboot();
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > @@ -364,3 +367,7 @@ void hang(void)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  	/* Loop forever */
> > > > > > >  	while (1) ;
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > >  }
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > +#endif
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +void nand_init(void) {}
> > > > > > > +void nand_deselect(void) {}
> > > > > > > diff --git a/include/configs/mx31pdk.h
> > > > > > > b/include/configs/mx31pdk.h index 1754595..217552e 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/include/configs/mx31pdk.h
> > > > > > > +++ b/include/configs/mx31pdk.h
> > > > > > > @@ -50,6 +50,7 @@
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  #define CONFIG_SPL_LDSCRIPT	"arch/$(ARCH)/cpu/u-boot-
spl.lds"
> > > > > > >  #define CONFIG_SPL_MAX_SIZE	2048
> > > > > > >  #define CONFIG_SPL_NAND_SUPPORT
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > +#define CONFIG_SPL_NAND_SUPPORT_LEGACY
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  #define CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE	0x87dc0000
> > > > > > >  #define CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE	0x87e00000
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > diff --git a/include/configs/tx25.h b/include/configs/tx25.h
> > > > > > > index e72f8f6..7c362d0 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/include/configs/tx25.h
> > > > > > > +++ b/include/configs/tx25.h
> > > > > > > @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  #define CONFIG_SPL_LDSCRIPT		"arch/$(ARCH)/cpu/u-
boot-
> > > > 
> > > > spl.lds"
> > > > 
> > > > > > >  #define CONFIG_SPL_MAX_SIZE		2048
> > > > > > >  #define CONFIG_SPL_NAND_SUPPORT
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > +#define CONFIG_SPL_NAND_SUPPORT_LEGACY
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  #define CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE		0x810c0000
> > > > > > >  #define CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE		0x81200000
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > 1.7.11.7
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This is not about legacy vs. non-legacy. This is about basic vs.
> > > > > > more featured
> > > > > > SPL because of SPL size constraints. So what about dropping
> > > > > > CONFIG_SPL_NAND_SUPPORT_LEGACY and testing for
> > > > > > CONFIG_SPL_FRAMEWORK definition
> > > > > > instead?
> > > > 
> > > > I was thinking about that, but the symbol is unrelated to NAND.
> > > 
> > > Well, it's CONFIG_SPL_FRAMEWORK + CONFIG_SPL_NAND_SUPPORT that defines
> > > the other implementation, and CONFIG_SPL_NAND_SUPPORT triggers the
> > > build of mxc_nand_spl.c for SPL, so the common point is
> > > CONFIG_SPL_FRAMEWORK.
> > > 
> > > > I still think
> > > > it's either a matter of fixing for new SPL or removing those two
> > > > boards. The nand_spl/ stuff shall be removed ASAP.
> > > 
> > > Removing those boards is not a solution.
> > > 
> > > Is it really about "new" SPL? The generic SPL is enabled by CONFIG_SPL,
> > > and CONFIG_SPL_FRAMEWORK is a sub-option. If the generic SPL rules
> > > imposed to use the SPL framework functions, there would be no such
> > > sub-option. So it looks like these boards are complying to the new SPL
> > > rules.
> > > 
> > > We could see if using CONFIG_SPL_FRAMEWORK would still allow the SPL to
> > > fit in 2 kiB in order to drop this function, but if it does not fit,
> > > the new SPL rules should still make it possible to have a solution for
> > > any board having SPL size constraints.
> > 
> > Rather than this, the other option would be to make whatever calls
> > nand_boot()
> > compatible with the SPL frameworks' implementation of spl_nand, so we
> > don't need
> > different function calls.
> 
> If by that you mean renaming and reorganizing functions without using the
> main SPL framework, sure. For hang(), this has already been done by
> Andreas' pending series, and for nand_boot(), Tom's plan seems to be to
> merge the various existing implementations, and beyond that it would be
> possible to make the calls look more like the SPL framework's as you
> suggest.

OK, makes sense.