On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 07:44:01PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 at 10:26, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 09:56:44AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > What do people think about requiring SPL_DM for new boards? Would that > > > cause any problems? > > > > > > There is not much use of of-platdata (compiling the DT into C to save > > > space) - is that because it doesn't work for people? > > > > > > I am particularly keen to drop the old block interface from SPL. It > > > seems to me that boards that can use that might have enough space to > > > enable SPL_DM and SPL_DM_BLK? What do people think? > > > > I don't think this works. The problem is we aren't seeing new SoCs that > > have a large initial amount of memory but rather many continuing to have > > 32KiB or similar tiny sizes. So, I'd rather continue to go with saying > > it's optional, but that we won't introduce new SPL functionality that > > can be DM or not DM, but only new functionality that needs SPL_DM and > > if platforms want it, but have limited memory, we need to go TPL->SPL in > > that case. > > OK I see. > > What do you think of a migration method for boards which don't use > SPL_DM, so they migrate to TPL? Would that cause a lot of problems?
I'm not sure what it gains us. Maybe the first step here is to see what the list of non-DM_SPL platforms / SoCs are? -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
