Hi Kever, On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 19:11, Kever Yang <kever.y...@rock-chips.com> wrote: > > > > 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.
OK hopefully these can all be applied soon, perhaps in a -next branch. Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
