On 11/28/19 7:22 AM, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > On 11/26/19 6:07 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: >> On 11/26/19 5:52 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 05:47:48PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>> On 11/26/19 5:26 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 09:11:51AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>>>> On 11/26/19 12:16 AM, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: >>>>>>> Dear maintainers, >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>>> we have been trying to move to the driver model for several years >>>>>>> now. >>>>>>> Starting in 2018 we have added warnings to the Makefile that >>>>>>> boards not >>>>>>> supporting the driver model will be eliminated. Still 24 % of the >>>>>>> configuration files have not been converted and do not even use >>>>>>> CONFIG_DM=y. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If we want to get rid of legacy drivers, at some point we have to >>>>>>> remove >>>>>>> the 347 configuration files in the list below not using the >>>>>>> driver model. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I suggest to do this directly after the release of v2020.01 >>>>>>> scheduled >>>>>>> January 6th. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This should not stop the maintainers from reinserting the boards >>>>>>> after >>>>>>> conversion to the driver model. >>>>>> >>>>>> Some boards just cannot accommodate this DM stuff. For those boards, >>>>>> it's just bloat without any useful added value. Hence, these boards >>>>>> would be removed because they cannot accommodate arbitrary bloat. >>>>>> This >>>>>> makes U-Boot not-so-universal bootloader anymore, but rather a >>>>>> bloated one. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think we can force boards out or impose DM on everyone >>>>>> unless we >>>>>> can solve this bloat issue first. >>>>> >>>>> As someone who was involved in creating this DM stuff, do you have >>>>> some >>>>> ideas on addressing things? Given that you're responsible for a >>>>> number >>>>> of these platforms and can test out some ideas on them, what are you >>>>> suggesting? >>>> >>>> How about directly calling driver functions for drivers which have >>>> single instance only ? Then we could optimize out all the DM overhead >>>> for that. >>> >>> And when are you hoping to post an RFC / example? >> >> Currently I have zero time available. Maybe someone else can look into >> this option? > > Dear Marex, > > DM drivers make use of the DM infrastructure for instance for the > allocation of the private data area. The uclass files often include > common logic needed for accessing all drivers (see for example tpm_xfer()). > > So which drivers do you think of that could be simplified?
UART for example ? You only usually have one. > I would also be interested to learn which of the 347 boards not using > CONFIG_DM=y are still actively maintained. Probably quite a few of those iMX, omap and PPC ones. The qemu ones are probably used for CI ? _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
