Hi Jagan, Simon, On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Jagan Teki <jt...@openedev.com> wrote: > 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. >
Can you please suggest which way should we go for this patch? I still prefer one board with one SPI flash macro. Regards, Bin _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
