Hi Tom, On 20/11/18 15:55, Tom Rini wrote: > 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.
Right, fully agree. > 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? I am just figuring out how we can do. One other aspect introducing another stage as TPL could be the increased boot time, even if I guess it is not much. However, there are some applications in automotive that are very "sensible" to any increment in boot time. Regards, Stefano -- ===================================================================== DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: +49-8142-66989-53 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: sba...@denx.de ===================================================================== _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
