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

Simon Goldschmidt
2018-11-25T21:09:31Z

On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 9:50 PM Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 at 10:02, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 03:44:28PM +0100, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
> > > Am Do., 22. Nov. 2018, 14:44 hat Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> geschrieben:
> > >
> > > > 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 at 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.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This is a little confusing for me. Socfpga gen5 SPL doesn't do that. And it
> > > seems a little strange or outdated overall.
> > >
> > > Would there be some kind of reference architecture or mach to look at
> > > what's the suggested/up-to-date way to implement SPL? Also regarding code
> > > flow?
> >
> > So, SPL is where things get, ahem, fuzzy. While I don't want to
> > encourage boundless growth in U-Boot proper, we aren't exactly size
> > constrained (but rather, functional/logical constrained). But in SPL,
> > yes, we have many platforms with 32/64/128 kilobyte hard limits (and
> > some smaller) and we can't always shove in a "TPL" before SPL either.
> > So in SPL we do make use of platform data instead. While not the
> > smallest size constraint, am335x_hs_evm is a reasonable thing to look at
> > in this case.
>
> Also 'rock' uses CONFIG_OF_PLATDATA which provides a halfway house -
> still uses DT, but it gets converted into C structs so saves code
> space.
>
> firefly-rk3288 is a pretty good DM/DT example, including SPL.

I've currently got an issue on socfpga gen5 that could be solved best
by enabling CONFIG_OF_EMBED (mixing const and non-const sections is a
problem for CRC calculation). However, it could probably also solve by
using platform data (but that doesn't work out of the box, yet). The
problem with CONFIG_OF_EMBED is that I think it's OK to enable this
for SPL but I don't like enabling it for U-Boot, so:

Would it make sense to duplicate the whole "Provider of DTB for OF
control" choice so that it can be OF_EMBED for SPL but different for
U-Boot? Or does it make more sense to convert socfpga gen5 to use
OF_PLATDATA?

Regards,
Simon