On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 05:01:21PM -0400, Tom Rini wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 10:38:45PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > > On 6/10/20 10:16 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > > [...] > > > configs/socfpga_dbm_soc1_defconfig | 1 + > > > configs/socfpga_de0_nano_soc_defconfig | 1 + > > > configs/socfpga_de10_nano_defconfig | 1 + > > > configs/socfpga_de1_soc_defconfig | 1 + > > > > I don't think those de*_soc boards have a SPI NOR at all. > > And I'm also afraid that enabling this will make those boards overflow > > SPL size limits. > > There is zero size change from this patch on any platform included in > this patch. > > Today each of the boards you mention enables CONFIG_SPL_SPI_SUPPORT, > CONFIG_SPL_SPI_FLASH_SUPPORT and then CONFIG_SPL_SPI_FLASH_TINY. > > That said, that means you aren't using SPL_DM_SPI for real, so I'll go > take a look at what to change instead in the previous patch, thanks!
Nope, check your platforms again. Based on looking over socfpga_de1_soc/spl/u-boot-spl.map it's not discarding a bunch of the DM SPI stuff as we're in fact building it today, and using the few functions that spi-mem-nodm.c provides from spi-mem.c instead. So this is correct for what's happening today. With Jagan's removal patches that I believe allow us to nuke drivers/spi/spi.c (and so the unconditional building of it) as it nukes the only platform that uses the only video driver that calls spi_set_wordlen() (spi_do_alloc_slave() is unused globally) we could then go ahead and do non-DM_SPI here, fully. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
