Hi Tom, On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 at 09:22, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 02, 2024 at 09:26:42AM -0500, Raymond Mao wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > > > On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 at 09:43, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > This stops coral, bob and kevin from booting. > > > > > > The correct way to do this was always to use a Kconfig option, so let's > > > first revert this broken idea. > > > > > > OF_BOARD and BLOBLIST should be general and hardware agnostic, > > do you have more information on why they don't work for a few boards? > > Maybe the way to handle these logic within certain boards should be > > changed other than to revert this? > > Yes, I'd like to understand the whole problem better since we had a > forever-and-ever thread, compromised to what's in tree now and now you > want to revert the compromise and bring is back to what was argued > against for forever-and-ever, at least from a very quick read.
I'm sorry but I believe I have explained the problem in that forever and-ever thread, so I don't really want to re-run it. It may be that I was right all along? Raymond, I cannot pass the DT in the bloblist from TPL to SPL on x86. There is not enough cache-as-RAM, for a start. Plus the DT is in the memory-mapped SPI flash, so it makes no sense... The primary issue here (I believe) is the Linaro idea that U-Boot should not have its own devicetree, because there is always a prior stage of closed-source firmware (e.g. TF-A*). Perhaps I am wrong about that, but that is the way I understand it now, as it explains why OF_BLOBLIST caused such friction. Regards, Simon * I've seen quite a few vendor-specific source trees and none has been upstreamed
