Re: [PATCH 1/5] disk: Add an option for partitions in SPL

[Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2358 bytes --]

On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 01:21:07PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 at 12:31, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 12:24:41PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > Hi Tom,
> > >
> > > On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 at 06:49, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 12:10:01PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In some cases we do not want to enable partition support in SPL. Add an
> > > > > option to allow this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > >  disk/Kconfig               | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++----
> > > > >  disk/Makefile              |  6 +++---
> > > > >  drivers/block/blk-uclass.c |  2 +-
> > > > >  3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure this makes sense?  I thought when I looked in to this last
> > > > the only place where we had partition code being linked and not
> > > > discarded in the case of SPL and no devices that would have partitions
> > > > on them was one xilinx platform.  How do we get to bringing in partition
> > > > code and not having something that uses it?
> > >
> > > The problem is that drivers are not discarded and Takahiro's series
> > > adds a driver for partitions.
> > >
> > > So yes, we were able to get away with this before, but cannot now.
> >
> > Things which aren't needed / used need to be discarded.  So we might
> > have use cases for this, yes (I was thinking after I sent that OK, yes,
> > imx probably tends to not need partition support since we read at raw
> > offsets, outside from maybe falcon mode using targets).  But we
> > shouldn't generally be now pulling in drivers that aren't functionally
> > used.
> 
> We don't have a way of detecting whether a driver is used, with driver
> model, so the only option is Kconfig. Does that make sense? Please let
> me know if there is any disconnect here.

Yes, it's possible that we have platforms enabling functionality they
don't _need_, but unlikely (aside from the we don't need partition
reading, we do raw offsets from block device only platforms).  So there
shouldn't be a whole bunch of stuff now being pulled in to SPL that
wasn't before and doesn't need investigation / explanation.

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]