Hi Bin, On 15 December 2015 at 10:48, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
Sorry, I didn't get you what do you mean by one board with one SPI flash macro? Suppose if board have one controller connected with micro flash then the board file include CONFIG_SPI_FLASH_STMICRO and if another board having two controllers one connected with spansion and other connected with micro then the board file include CONFIG_SPI_FLASH_STMICRO, CONFIG_SPI_FLASH_SPANSION. It's entirely up to board that connected flash devices. thanks! -- Jagan. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
