Re: problems with boards with CONFIG_DM disabled

["Marek Behún" <marek.behun@nic.cz>]

On Wed, 26 May 2021 08:52:58 -0400
Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 02:25:54AM +0200, Marek Behun wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 May 2021 01:27:56 +0200
> > Marek Behun <marek.behun@nic.cz> wrote:
> >   
> > > Tom, Simon,
> > > 
> > > now that LTO is merged I am working on
> > >   Support SPI NORs and OF partitions in `mtd list`
> > > 
> > > but CI fails for some boards, see
> > > https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/pull/55
> > > 
> > > The reason is that there are still several boards which do not use
> > > CONFIG_DM.
> > > 
> > > On the previous version Simon commented that I should use
> > >   if (IS_ENABLED(...))
> > > instead of
> > >   #if
> > > but this does not currently work for those boards with CONFIG_DM
> > > disabled (struct udevice's members are not visible at all, and
> > > functions from dm/device.h do not exist).
> > > 
> > > There are multiple possible workarounds:
> > > - use #if (until all boards are at CONFIG_DM)
> > > - create static inline versions of functions from dm/device.h
> > > returning failures when CONFIG_DM is not set (this would be
> > > rather big :( )
> > > - wait till all those boards with CONFIG_DM disabled are removed
> > > - ...  
> > 
> > Since there is rather a large number of defconfigs with CONFIG_DM
> > disabled, and since the relevant code was rather complex
> > 
> > 	if (!is_part && dev && mtd->dev == dev) ||
> > 	    !strcmp(name, mtd->name) ||
> > 	    (is_part && mtd->dev && !strcmp(name, mtd->dev->name))
> > 
> > I moved the code into a separate name matching function and for now
> > created a non-DM version.
> > 
> > Hopefully this will be acceptable and pass CI.  
> 
> There's two parts to it, I suppose.  First, looking at the failed
> build:
> https://dev.azure.com/u-boot/u-boot/_build/results?buildId=2297&view=logs&j=9905d24b-10d5-587f-b981-9e43e4414ee0&t=4fbb7fc6-2c55-511b-8011-58267bbd0b81&l=510
> that's not a no-CONFIG_DM migration (SPL_DM is not required).
> Second, I wonder what it would look like on top of my
> WIP/make-DM_USB-fatal branch as that has removed a number of
> non-migrated boards.  The deadline for CONFIG_DM causing removal
> itself is still a bit away, but that branch does remove a number of
> boards.
> 

I've solved this for now, hopefully in an acceptable way, check it out:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20210526120826.8045-10-marek.behun@nic.cz/

look for mtd_device_matches_name, there are 2 implementations guarded
by macros.