Hi Rob, On 19 July 2017 at 09:24, Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: >> On 07/18/2017 04:54 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >>> >>> Hi Alex, >>> >>> On 18 July 2017 at 07:47, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 07/18/2017 04:00 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> On 12 July 2017 at 05:52, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 25.06.17 01:05, Rob Clark wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> Cc: Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Looks reasonable to me, but could probably use a commit message ;). >>>>>> Also >>>>>> please make sure to CC Simon on all things DM. >>>>>> >>>>> Can we drop the CONFIG_LCD support entirely? This is legacy code at >>>>> this point. What boards use it? >>>> >>>> >>>> Sounds like someone would first need to convert a bunch of boards :). >>>> >>>> $ for i in $(grep CONFIG_LCD configs/* | cut -d : -f 1); do grep -q >>>> DM_VIDEO >>>> $i || echo $i; done >>>> configs/at91sam9261ek_dataflash_cs0_defconfig >>>> configs/at91sam9261ek_dataflash_cs3_defconfig >>>> configs/at91sam9261ek_nandflash_defconfig >>>> configs/at91sam9263ek_dataflash_cs0_defconfig >>>> configs/at91sam9263ek_dataflash_defconfig >>>> configs/at91sam9263ek_nandflash_defconfig >>>> configs/at91sam9263ek_norflash_boot_defconfig >>>> configs/at91sam9263ek_norflash_defconfig >>>> configs/at91sam9g10ek_dataflash_cs0_defconfig >>>> configs/at91sam9g10ek_dataflash_cs3_defconfig >>>> configs/at91sam9g10ek_nandflash_defconfig >>>> configs/at91sam9m10g45ek_mmc_defconfig >>>> configs/at91sam9m10g45ek_nandflash_defconfig >>>> configs/at91sam9n12ek_mmc_defconfig >>>> configs/at91sam9n12ek_nandflash_defconfig >>>> configs/at91sam9n12ek_spiflash_defconfig >>>> configs/at91sam9rlek_dataflash_defconfig >>>> configs/at91sam9rlek_mmc_defconfig >>>> configs/at91sam9rlek_nandflash_defconfig >>>> configs/at91sam9x5ek_dataflash_defconfig >>>> configs/at91sam9x5ek_mmc_defconfig >>>> configs/at91sam9x5ek_nandflash_defconfig >>>> configs/at91sam9x5ek_spiflash_defconfig >>>> configs/brppt1_mmc_defconfig >>>> configs/brppt1_nand_defconfig >>>> configs/brppt1_spi_defconfig >>>> configs/brxre1_defconfig >>>> configs/cm_t3517_defconfig >>>> configs/cm_t35_defconfig >>>> configs/picosam9g45_defconfig >>>> configs/pm9261_defconfig >>>> configs/pm9263_defconfig >>>> configs/sama5d36ek_cmp_mmc_defconfig >>>> configs/sama5d36ek_cmp_nandflash_defconfig >>>> configs/sama5d36ek_cmp_spiflash_defconfig >>>> configs/sama5d3xek_mmc_defconfig >>>> configs/sama5d3xek_nandflash_defconfig >>>> configs/sama5d3xek_spiflash_defconfig >>>> configs/sama5d4ek_mmc_defconfig >>>> configs/sama5d4ek_nandflash_defconfig >>>> configs/sama5d4ek_spiflash_defconfig >>>> configs/zipitz2_defconfig >>> >>> Not really. I suspect none of those uses EFI_LOADER >> >> >> Why not? I really don't want to limit EFI_LOADER to something I consider >> good. It's supposed to be the *one* interface that just works for everyone. >> >>> There is video driver for atmel which is most of the boards in that >>> list, but we can disable EFI_LOADER until they are converted. >> >> >> No, I won't disable EFI_LOADER on any board because it's not converted. I'd >> rather add support to EFI_LOADER to support more boards that are not >> converted to DM ;). >> >>> We should avoid adding new features to legacy code paths as it makes >>> DM conversion harder and less likely to complete. >> >> >> I agree, but the solution is not to disable EFI_LOADER, it's to convert >> boards. >> > > So what is the conclusion on this patch? I can re-send with a commit > msg (although there is not much to say beyond $subject).. I kinda > think we should merge this for now, unless dropping CONFIG_LCD is > imminent in which case I can re-work it to drop the CONFIG_LCD and add > CONFIG_DM_VIDEO.. EFI_LOADER should definitely support the non-legacy > case and probably should not remove the legacy case until it does not > exist anymore.
Yes I think resend with a commit message and apply it. I'll look at a patch to make EFI_LOADER depend on DM, which I think should have been done at the start. Supporting legacy code paths with new features is just not a good idea. > > btw, I had a bit of time today to rebase my u-boot patches and start > cleaning up some of the other patches I have for (re)posting.. so > expect some more patches soon(ish) > > BR, > -R Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
