On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 11:52:33PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > On 6/10/20 11:48 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > > 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. > > Are you _sure_ the board has a SPI NOR on it at all ? I doubt all of > them do, so it seems some of those SPL DM SPI are copy-paste errors.
I'm only as sure as what the board maintainer enabled. As they're on CC and see the answer is "Oh, I don't even have flash!" then they should go and fix that. My point is that it's not changing any platform sizes and is being explicit about what is implicit today based on the build logic in use. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
