On 04/02/2019 03:00 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Kever, > > On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 at 20:46, Kever Yang <kever.y...@rock-chips.com> wrote: >> Hi Simon, >> >> >> On 04/01/2019 10:00 AM, Simon Glass wrote: >>> Hi Kever, >>> >>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 at 19:03, Kever Yang <kever.y...@rock-chips.com> wrote: >>>> Hi Simon, >>>> >>>> >>>> On 03/31/2019 05:18 AM, Simon Glass wrote: >>>>> Hi Kever, >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 21:01, Kever Yang <kever.y...@rock-chips.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Rockchip use 'arch-rockchip' instead of arch-$(SOC) as common >>>>>> header file path, so that we can get the correct path directly. >>>>> Can you give a few more details on the reason for this change? I >>>>> cannot see the benefit? >>>> 1. 'rockchip' is not SOC name but vendor name, we'd better use correct >>>> name; >>>> 2. the build system will include $(SOC)-u-boot.dtsi automatically >>>> without modify >>>> $(SOC).dtsi or $(board).dtsi, if the $(SOC) default to 'rockchip', >>>> we can't use >>>> this feature. >>> OK I see. >>> >>> So far Rockchip has been designed so that a single U-Boot (proper) can >>> support multiple SoCs, >> I don't understand, how can a single U-Boot(proper) support multiple >> Rockchip SoCs, >> it sounds awesome which is kernel like. But I thought we need different >> build >> with different source for different SoCs now. > It should be possible simply by enabling multiple SoCs, so long as you > don't try to use both 32/64-bit ones. > > I suspect some extra work is needed, but probably not much.
multiple SoCs + multiple boards, I know it sounds very good and we may able to implement it, but it would be a long time. Kernel already do this, but we have to know that it leaves all the one time program init job to U-Boot like loader and load/fix a correct dtb for it. Can we have more common codes first, my patches for common 'board/spl/tpl' has pending for more than one year, and I split it into pieces and hope to get some of then merged in next merge window. I know there may be change request needed, so I really want to get patches review and response a little faster so that I can update a new version. Well, this patch get reviewed pretty fast, but others seems no one sees them. Thanks, - Kever > >> For $(SOC)-u-boot.dtsi, another way is using $(BOARD)-u-boot.dtsi, but I >> think in >> most case, we can have one $(SOC)-u-boot.dtsi instead of many >> $(BOARD)-u-boot.dtsi >> for one SoC, so we need this feature. > Well we can add multiple device-tree files. Each board has its own. > Then at runtime (in SPL) we select the correct one. > > Regards, > Simon > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
