On 15 December 2015 at 11:48, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jagan, > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Jagan Teki <jt...@openedev.com> wrote: >> Hi Bin, >> >> >> On Tuesday 15 December 2015 11:37 AM, Bin Meng wrote: >>> >>> Hi Jagan, >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Jagan Teki <jt...@openedev.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> Yes, your understanding is the same as mine. I wasn't clear in my >>> previous question. >>> >>> Right now this patch is doing exactly as what you and I understand, >>> that we just want to select the specific flash macro for a specific >>> x86 board. But Simon wanted to enable all of the flash macros for one >>> board for convenience. Thus I came to ask for what's our direction. >> >> >> So, does this board supports or connected all flash variants? in that case >> it is true right? "for convenience" here means for testing then ie also true >> because this particular board is meant for testing all flash devices, and >> also it is up to this particular board config over-head rather than the >> generic spi-flash. >> > > No, each board only connects one specific type of SPI flash, as > described in the board device tree file.
So your patch did that change? let me look at it what Simon commenting. thanks! -- Jagan. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
