On 11/22/2018 02:32 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 02:30:11PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: >> On 11/22/2018 02:28 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 02:24:49PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>> On 11/22/2018 01:52 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 10:25:14AM +0100, Christian Gmeiner wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Am Mo., 19. Nov. 2018 um 16:56 Uhr schrieb Simon Glass >>>>>> <s...@chromium.org>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This board has not been converted to CONFIG_DM_BLK by the deadline. >>>>>>> Remove it. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> As the board is still mainted I will NAK it for the moment. Are there >>>>>> any hints want needs to be done >>>>>> to port thie board over to new DM stuff? >>>>> >>>>> Yes, as a start you need to switch over to using CONFIG_OF_CONTROL and >>>>> selecting/providing a dtb file. I see ot1200 is using DWC_AHSATA which >>>>> needs more work, but this is the board-level work that needs doing. >>>> >>>> Wasn't there a possibility to use platform data in board file instead of >>>> DT ? Or is DT mandatory now , including the libfdt overhead ? >>> >>> In short, DT for U-Boot and platform data for SPL is what's recommended, >>> yes. >> >> If the board is limited, can it use only platdata ? Some platforms don't >> even have DT support at all. > > I'm sorry, I don't quite follow you. If the board has limited resources > prior to full U-Boot then yes, platform data. If the board has so > limited resources during full U-Boot that we can't have a DT, what > platform are we talking about?
I don't have one in mind, but I don't think the DT/platdata selection is specific to SPL. If a platform doesn't have DT support, it can very well use platdata throughout the whole process. -- Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
