[U-Boot] [PATCH v5 8/8] nand: mxc: Switch NAND SPL to generic SPL

Marek Vasut
2013-02-09T23:24:04Z

Dear Beno?t Th?baudeau,

> On Saturday, February 9, 2013 2:53:44 PM, Beno?t Th?baudeau wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 9, 2013 12:47:25 AM, Beno?t Th?baudeau wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 8, 2013 11:49:27 PM, Beno?t Th?baudeau wrote:
> > > > Subject: [PATCH v5 8/8] nand: mxc: Switch NAND SPL to generic SPL
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Beno?t Th?baudeau <benoit.thebaudeau@advansee.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > Changes in v5:
> > > > - Remove spaces between function name and open parenthesis.
> > > > - Fix mx31pdk and tx25 Makefile-s and SPL linker scripts.
> > > > - Remove the useless definition of CONFIG_SPL_LDSCRIPT.
> > > > - Fix the call to nand_boot().
> > > >
> > > > Changes in v4:
> > > > - New patch.
> > > >
> > > > Changes in v3: None
> > > > Changes in v2: None
> > >
> > > This is now supposed to be working and compile-tested.
> > >
> > > Custodians, please review and advise.
> > >
> > > Board maintainers, please test.
> > >
> > > Tell me if I should split away some stuff.
> > >
> > > Should doc/README.arm-relocation be updated, and how since tx25 no
> > > longer uses
> > > NAND SPL, which is also deprecated?
> > >
> > > Note that mx31pdk and tx25 had been broken by commit
> > > e05e5de7fae5bec79617e113916dac6631251156. After this commit, for those
> > > boards,
> > > _main called board_init_f, which called relocate_code, which
> > > unexpectedly (for
> > > their users) returned to nowhere in ctr0.S instead of calling
> > > nand_boot. Also,
> > > crt0.S calls nand_boot if CONFIG_SPL_BUILD is not defined but
> > > CONFIG_NAND_SPL
> > > is, which is not normal for NAND SPL. Other NAND SPL boards may be
> > > broken too,
> > > but that's not too much of an issue since they are supposed to migrate
> > > to generic SPL.
> >
> > I am also wondering if board_init_f should not be moved out of
> > mxc_nand_spl.c to
> > either <board>/lowlevel_init.S or <board>/<board>.c. That would make
> > mxc_nand_spl.c more generic if for some reason a board needs to do
> > specific things. Any opinion?
> >
> > For the start.S files, since it's not possible to know from
> > CONFIG_SPL_BUILD and
> > CONFIG_NAND_SPL if relocate_code is needed or not, I see the following
> > choices:
> > 1) Let it defined in all cases. It's quite small, so it won't hurt much.
> > 2) Create a specific SPL #define (e.g. CONFIG_SPL_RELOCATE_CODE) to
> > define it
> >
> > for generic SPL only if needed.
> >
> > 3) Just create a specific linker section for it so that it's
> > automatically
> >
> > garbage-collected if unneeded.
> >
> > Any opinion?

How much of start.S can be actually rewritten in pure-C ?

Best regards,
Marek Vasut