On 11 February 2016 at 02:30, Christophe Ricard <christophe.ric...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jagan, > > My understanding is that some work are ongoing around spl in order to > support correctly DM for all spi/i2c bus drivers. > As a consequence patch 4 got differed. > > Hopefully Simon or Tom can comment. > > Are you ok in applying patch 1 and 2 only ? or should i send a new serie > with only patch 1 and 2 ?
3/4 looks not good to me with so many ifdef, may we can do something clear similar to kirkwood_spi does. > > On 10/02/2016 20:16, Jagan Teki wrote: >> >> On 8 February 2016 at 23:26, Jagan Teki <jt...@openedev.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 8 February 2016 at 23:10, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sat, Feb 06, 2016 at 11:27:21PM +0100, Christophe Ricard wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Simon, Tom, >>>>> >>>>> I assume the approach you are taking is also valuable for the i2c: >>>>> omap24xx patch serie: >>>>> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2016-January/241676.html >>>>> >>>>> What are your recommendation about the pending patches ? >>>>> Should i send back only the one not taking care of the DM conversion >>>>> and send another serie later ? >>>>> >>>>> I have seen some work ongoing on this topic on the u-boot-fdt tree >>>>> on the spl-working branch. >>>>> Is there a more accurate place to follow this work ? >>>> >>>> For i2c, aside from needing to defer removing the non-DM code for a >>>> while yet, there were some review comments to address in a v2 or answer >>>> as intentional. For SPI, it's all looking good and I'm assuming Jagan >>>> will have a SPI PR soon. Thanks! >>> >>> Yes, by this week-end. >> >> Any idea 4/4 got differed in patchwork [1], do we have next version >> patches for these? >> >> [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/569241/ >> >>>>> On 26/01/2016 02:55, Peng Fan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Simon, >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 06:11:24PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +Hans >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Tom, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 21 January 2016 at 05:24, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 07:46:15PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> +Mugunthan, Tom >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 17 January 2016 at 03:56, Christophe Ricard >>>>>>>>> <christophe.ric...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Convert omap3_spi driver to DM and keep compatibility with >>>>>>>>>> previous >>>>>>>>>> mode. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Christophe Ricard <christophe-h.ric...@st.com> >>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> drivers/spi/Kconfig | 6 + >>>>>>>>>> drivers/spi/omap3_spi.c | 439 >>>>>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ >>>>>>>>>> drivers/spi/omap3_spi.h | 14 +- >>>>>>>>>> 3 files changed, 402 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is a pretty painful conversion, with lots of #ifdefs. I think >>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>> would be possible to use a common pointer type and reduce this. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But perhaps it does not matter - how long must we be in the state >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> supporting legacy SPI? Can we convert all TI boards to driver >>>>>>>>> model? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We _really_ need some way to support more than one board per binary >>>>>>>> before we can move everything to DM only. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think we can kind of do this today if we stick to using platform >>>>>>>> data >>>>>>>> for everything that's board-specific rather than SoC-defined. What >>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>> talked about at ELCE was auto-generating the pdata from the device >>>>>>>> tree, >>>>>>>> I think. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We discussed this on IRC but since that doesn't exist as far as the >>>>>>> mailing list is concerned... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The current plan is: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Adjust build system to optionally build a u-boot.img in FIT format >>>>>>> that includes the U-Boot binary and >1 device tree files >>>>>>> - Adjust SPL to load this >>>>>>> - Add a way for SPL to determine which device tree to select (by >>>>>>> calling a board-specific function) >>>>>>> - Have SPL pass this selected device tree to U-Boot when it starts >>>>>> >>>>>> Can dtb be sperated from the final u-boot.img, if using SPL? >>>>>> I mean let SPL load the u-boot.img and the dtb to correct DRAM >>>>>> address. >>>>>> And the dtb is shared with linux kernel. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Peng. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thus we should be able to support more than one board with a single >>>>>>> U-Boot image. Of course this is not a perfect solution (e.g. it is >>>>>>> inefficient since the DTs are likely to be largely the same) but it >>>>>>> should be a good first step. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm going to try this out with sunxi initially and plan to get some >>>>>>> patches out by the end of the week. > > > _______________________________________________ > U-Boot mailing list > U-Boot@lists.denx.de > http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot -- Jagan. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
