On 8 December 2015 at 17:27, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jagan, > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 2:57 AM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 3 December 2015 at 06:27, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi Jagan, >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Jagan Teki <jt...@openedev.com> wrote: >>>> Hi Bin, >>>> >>>> On 3 December 2015 at 10:14, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Hi Simon, >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>> +Jagan >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Bin, >>>>>> >>>>>> On 1 December 2015 at 18:41, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Simon, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 12:32 AM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>> > Hi Bin, >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > On 28 November 2015 at 05:45, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >> Every board has one dedicated type of SPI flash, hence it is >>>>>>> >> unnecessary to include multiple SPI flash drivers. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> For QEMU and coreboot (default build of coreboot is also QEMU), >>>>>>> >> SPI flash is not supported. Remove those SPI flash drivers. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> >> --- >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> configs/bayleybay_defconfig | 2 -- >>>>>>> >> configs/chromebook_link_defconfig | 2 -- >>>>>>> >> configs/chromebox_panther_defconfig | 2 -- >>>>>>> >> configs/coreboot-x86_defconfig | 4 ---- >>>>>>> >> configs/crownbay_defconfig | 3 --- >>>>>>> >> configs/galileo_defconfig | 2 -- >>>>>>> >> configs/minnowmax_defconfig | 3 --- >>>>>>> >> configs/qemu-x86_defconfig | 4 ---- >>>>>>> >> 8 files changed, 22 deletions(-) >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > What is the benefit of this? I see it removes a few lines in a data >>>>>>> > table. Does it matter? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Maybe we should ask the other way around, why do we create so many >>>>>>> flash driver Kconfig option? I believe the intention was footprint. >>>>>>> Besides the footprint issue, having just one flash driver in each >>>>>>> board makes it very clear instead of causing confusion. Looks other >>>>>>> board defconfig files only select one. >>>> >>>> Are you talking about flash vendor config or CONFIG_SPI_FLASH? >>>> >>> >>> Flash vendor config, as you see in this patch. >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> They are a hangover from when we had a separate driver for each one. >>>>>> Jagan put a lot of effort into removing all the semi-duplicated code. >>>>>> >>>>>> Maybe we should prune down these options? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But if we already spent a lot of effort into removing all the >>>>> semi-duplicated code, we should not have converted those flash driver >>>>> to Kconfig options before. >>>>> >>>>> See commit d5af92315bb48740f16bf8817f38e227d3076905 "sf: kconfig: add >>>>> kconfig options for spi flashes" >>>>> >>>>> I suspect we may remove most of these SPI flash macros, but at least >>>>> SST flash macro should be kept since right now it is mixed in the >>>>> generic driver with a special byte program and word program which is >>>>> incompatible with other vendors' flashes. >>>> >>>> But there is some flash vendor specific code like quad enable bit, >>>> locking ops and finally about spi_flash_params table. >>>> >>> >>> I know. That's probably why adding all these SPI flash drivers don't >>> help at all because only one code path will take effect. And what I >>> did in this patch is to select one type of flash per board. >> >> So how about we group together 3-4 of the common ones, with no special >> features, into a 'CONFIG_SPI_FLASH_GENERIC'? >> > > Can you comment on this CONFIG_SPI_FLASH_GENERIC as Simon suggested?
Good idea, but if we don't find enough foot-print difference on no feature flags may be we can remove those config items and I have a plan to re-arrange the sf_param_table which suits Linux may be I will come back about these things. thanks! -- Jagan. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
