[U-Boot] [PATCH 67/93] arm: Remove socfpga_stratix10 board

Simon Glass
2018-11-23T12:04:49Z

Hi Tom,

On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 at 16:25, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 01:50:26PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 at 18:01, Ley Foon Tan <lftan.linux@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 1:27 AM Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This board has not been converted to CONFIG_DM_BLK by the deadline.
> > > > Remove it.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > board/altera/stratix10-socdk/MAINTAINERS | 7 -
> > > > board/altera/stratix10-socdk/Makefile | 7 -
> > > > board/altera/stratix10-socdk/socfpga.c | 7 -
> > > > configs/socfpga_stratix10_defconfig | 59 ------
> > > > include/configs/socfpga_stratix10_socdk.h | 221 ----------------------
> > > > 5 files changed, 301 deletions(-)
> > > > delete mode 100644 board/altera/stratix10-socdk/MAINTAINERS
> > > > delete mode 100644 board/altera/stratix10-socdk/Makefile
> > > > delete mode 100644 board/altera/stratix10-socdk/socfpga.c
> > > > delete mode 100644 configs/socfpga_stratix10_defconfig
> > > > delete mode 100644 include/configs/socfpga_stratix10_socdk.h
> > > >
> > > NAK
> > >
> > > Are you refer to CONFIG_BLK?
> > >
> >
> > Yes that's right
> >
> > > After "make socfpga_stratix10_defconfig", CONFIG_BLK and CONIF_DM are enabled.
> > >
> > >
> > > $ make socfpga_stratix10_defconfig
> > > #
> > > # configuration written to .config
> > > #
> > >
> > > $ cat .config | grep CONFIG_BLK
> > > CONFIG_BLK=y
> > >
> > > $ cat .config | grep -w CONFIG_DM
> > > CONFIG_DM=y
> > >
> > > $ cat .config | grep -w CONFIG_DM_MMC
> > > CONFIG_DM_MMC=y
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > CONFIG_BLK is not in socfpga_stratix10_defconfig because it is enabled
> > > by default if CONFIG_DM_MMC is enabled.
> > >
> > > In drivers/block/Kconfig:
> > >
> > > config BLK
> > > bool "Support block devices"
> > > depends on DM
> > > default y if DM_MMC
> > >
> > The problem here is in SPL - I removed the 'default y' for SPL_BLK.
> > This was because it created a lot more breakages.
> >
> > However, I think it is best that I put that back, and require boards
> > that doesn't support CONFIG_BLK in SPL to remove it themselves. It
> > will require more work now, but in the long run, defaulting to on in
> > SPL seems better.
> >
> > So your board will be fine, sorry for the trouble.
>
> Note that we're going to need to come up with some sort of compromise
> for what we do in SPL as we do have serious size constraints to worry
> about.

Indeed. I think I might need to dig into this a bit. SPL_BLK itself is
about the same size as the legacy code (or was when I do the
conversion) as I was very concerned about size. However if we have
anything using the legacy block stuff, we cannot remove it. This might
need more thought.

Regards,
Simon