Hi Tom, On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 at 10:45, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 10:09:55AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > > On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 at 15:54, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > Remove and replace common.h and config.h in sandbox when it's not needed > > > and add some explicit includes where needed. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> > > > --- > > > arch/sandbox/cpu/cache.c | 1 - > > > arch/sandbox/cpu/cpu.c | 1 - > > > arch/sandbox/cpu/sdl.c | 2 +- > > > arch/sandbox/cpu/spl.c | 1 - > > > arch/sandbox/cpu/start.c | 2 +- > > > arch/sandbox/cpu/state.c | 2 +- > > > arch/sandbox/include/asm/io.h | 2 ++ > > > arch/sandbox/include/asm/state.h | 1 - > > > arch/sandbox/lib/bootm.c | 1 - > > > arch/sandbox/lib/fdt_fixup.c | 1 - > > > arch/sandbox/lib/interrupts.c | 1 - > > > arch/sandbox/lib/pci_io.c | 1 - > > > board/sandbox/sandbox.c | 2 +- > > > 13 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > > > Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > > > Is it possible to move CFG_SYS_SDRAM_BASE/SIZE to Kconfig? > > Possible? Sure. But I think it would end up being fairly horrible. What > would be nice I think is some Zephyr-style "convert > CONFIG_DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE to some defines" because we could parse out > /memory to CFG_SYS_SDRAM_BASE/SIZE and that's something we _need_ at > build time.
That would be pretty easy to do. But I would prefer to have it create CONFIG_SYS_SDRAM_BASE/SIZE so that it fits in with Kconfig, just that the value is set for you. If you like you could create an issue for it. > > > For CFG_SYS_BAUDRATE_TABLE perhaps we could have a standard set that > > most boards use, or turn it into a set of word flags with a bit for > > each rate? > > We do, largely, use a default table. I forget which further rework I > posted as an RFC a few years ago, but I believe it was largely seen as > being uglier than what we have today. I found these: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=262148&state=* http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20210925121958.26001-1-p...@kernel.org/ IMO the second one from Pali makes sense, but it was never followed up. It doesn't look too difficult. We should have a policy that if people complain about a patch but don't follow up, we apply the patch we have. I would like to drop configs/sandbox.h at some point and these two points are all that is left. Regards, Simon
