[U-Boot] [PATCH 66/93] arm: Remove ot1200 board

Marek Vasut
2018-11-22T13:40:07Z

On 11/22/2018 02:32 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 02:30:11PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On 11/22/2018 02:28 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 02:24:49PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>> On 11/22/2018 01:52 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 10:25:14AM +0100, Christian Gmeiner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am Mo., 19. Nov. 2018 um 16:56 Uhr schrieb Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This board has not been converted to CONFIG_DM_BLK by the deadline.
>>>>>>> Remove it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As the board is still mainted I will NAK it for the moment. Are there
>>>>>> any hints want needs to be done
>>>>>> to port thie board over to new DM stuff?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, as a start you need to switch over to using CONFIG_OF_CONTROL and
>>>>> selecting/providing a dtb file. I see ot1200 is using DWC_AHSATA which
>>>>> needs more work, but this is the board-level work that needs doing.
>>>>
>>>> Wasn't there a possibility to use platform data in board file instead of
>>>> DT ? Or is DT mandatory now , including the libfdt overhead ?
>>>
>>> In short, DT for U-Boot and platform data for SPL is what's recommended,
>>> yes.
>>
>> If the board is limited, can it use only platdata ? Some platforms don't
>> even have DT support at all.
>
> I'm sorry, I don't quite follow you. If the board has limited resources
> prior to full U-Boot then yes, platform data. If the board has so
> limited resources during full U-Boot that we can't have a DT, what
> platform are we talking about?

I don't have one in mind, but I don't think the DT/platdata selection is
specific to SPL. If a platform doesn't have DT support, it can very well
use platdata throughout the whole process.

--
Best regards,
Marek Vasut