On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 12:00:13PM +0100, Stefano Babic wrote: > Hi, > > On 19/11/18 23:06, Marek Vasut wrote: > > On 11/19/2018 11:02 PM, Adam Ford wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 3:54 PM Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 10:32:01PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > >>>> On 11/19/2018 08:45 PM, Adam Ford wrote: > >>>>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 12:36 PM Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 10:54 AM Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> All boards should now be migrated to use CONFIG_BLK. This series > >>>>>>> removes > >>>>>>> those with build problems using this option. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> If maintainers want to keep these boards in they should send a patch > >>>>>>> in > >>>>>>> the next week or two. Otherwise the board will be removed in the next > >>>>>>> release, and will need to be added and re-reviewed later. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The goal is to have all boards use driver model. But so far, we do > >>>>>>> allow > >>>>>>> CONFIG_DM to not be defined. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> PLEASE NOTE: This is not an easy process. It is possible that your > >>>>>>> board > >>>>>>> does work, or works with only minor changes. Please try to understand > >>>>>>> that > >>>>>>> the removal of a board is not done because people don't like your > >>>>>>> board. > >>>>>>> In fact the board might have been the first one I used when trying out > >>>>>>> U-Boot! It's just that we expect maintainers to keep up with the > >>>>>>> migration > >>>>>>> to driver model which has been running now for 4 years. It just isn't > >>>>>>> possible for a few people to migrate and test hundreds of boards. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> So, send a patch! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> OK, so with the intention of "need to light a fire", consider the fire > >>>>>> lit! But, I think v2 of this series needs to: > >>>>>> - Address the bug that's been noted of you checking on "DM_BLK" when > >>>>>> it's really just "BLK". > >>>>>> - Do a test build with BLK just being unconditional now. For example, > >>>>>> you're deleting the am335x_evm family but it builds fine with BLK > >>>>>> being enabled now. I even gave it a run time test via test.py and > >>>>>> we're fine. So, I think a new run where you see what fails to build > >>>>>> with BLK enabled by default now is in order to come up with a new > >>>>>> delete list. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> When we were migrating toward GCC 6, we introduced a warning message > >>>>> that was displayed at build indicating older versions of GCC would be > >>>>> unsupported, and GCC 6 would become a requirement. The > >>>>> CONFIG_DM_I2C_COMPAT generates a build warning and suggests that it be > >>>>> removed. I would like to propose that in the future, when setting > >>>>> deadlines, we insert something into the build mechanism that generates > >>>>> a warning to tell people that something is going to happen. > >>>> > >>>> I agree, that sounds good. > >>>> > >>>> I am extremely unhappy by how Simon decided, unilaterally, some > >>>> arbitrary deadline, told pretty much no one about that deadline and then > >>>> put a knife on many peoples' throats by sending out this series which > >>>> removes boards that are actively used and maintained, demanding they be > >>>> converted right this instant. > >>> > >>> OK, lets step back for a moment. Part of the problem is that yes, we > >>> (I) never found a good way to make a big scary build warning happen. > >>> But, lets look at https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/798309/ for a > >>> moment, which is when we set this deadline, and we had a good bit of > >>> discussion about related issues to make it happen. > >>> > >>> I also know that around the v2018.05 release I said, in public, but no I > >>> can't find a link right this moment, that we were pushing off a little > >>> bit on dropping _everything_ right then as there was basically some > >>> fairly important / widely used USB stuff that hadn't been converted yet > >>> (which has since been, I think, otherwise am335x_evm & co wouldn't have > >>> been happy?). I know I did since I can see in the archives a number of > >>> series where maintainers did a bunch of changes to various platforms / > >>> SoCs to turn on BLK right then. > >>> > >>> So, no, I don't want to drop a bunch of platforms _right_now_. But we > >>> really need to see what doesn't link anymore with BLK forced on, and > >>> plan from there. > >> > >> I remember the discussion, but it seems rather arbitrary for one > >> person to unilaterally start deleting boards. I think a more > >> appropriate approach would be to start a dialog instead of deleting > >> boards and then giving people a fairly short notice to respond - > >> especially this close to the US Thanksgiving holiday, several > >> religious holidays and New Years. Many people have planed time off > >> and/or end-of-year deadlines to hit without getting an abrupt suprise. > > > > ACK > > > I fully agree with Marek and Adam, but I have also some other technical > points related to i.MX6. > > I agree to move to new and better code, but this should not drop > important features that are appreciated by customers. Up now, U-Boot as > project was pretty conservative, trying t osupport as far as it is > possible even older architectures (MPC 88x, for example). > > On i.MX6, a feature is to have a single U-Boot binary (SPL + U-Boot) > running for more variants (Quad / Dual / Solo) of the SOC. This is done > with run time detection in code (SPL) - macros are provide to make the > work easy (it is, currently). There are plenty of boards doing this (all > listed by Simon for removal). This is common if the board has a SOM, and > of course the SOM is sold in different variants with different prices. > > If I understand well, moving to CONFIG_BLK means enabling CONFIG_DM_MMC > and this requires to set a DTS. But a DT is compiled by DTC, that means > we have a DT for each variant of the SOC. This forbids to have a single > binary and we need different binaries, one for each variant. We lose an > important feature, at least for some boards. Agree that having DT is > nice, but this should not drop what customer are asking. > > I know there are some improvement in TI code to get the root node in DT > and then load from it. Anyway, specially for i.MX6 solo, we are quite > running out of space in SRAM, mainly due to other required features. And > having multiple DTB with CONFIG_MULTI_DTB_FIT seems to work just if we > have no SPL. > > So first, it looks like that the issue is not so trivial as it was, and > second a technical solution must be searched for that.
Yes, this is a useful feature on i.MX lines and we need to figure out how to keep it. Perhaps we'll need some combination of CONFIG_SPL_FIT_LOAD (and board_fit_config_name_match) along with perhaps introducing a TPL to i.MX where we can get away with doing whatever we need to do, to init DRAM and have enough space to put SPL and U-Boot? -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
