On 08/27/2012 12:07 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 11:16:45AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: >> On 08/27/2012 09:37 AM, Tom Rini wrote: >>> On 08/24/2012 05:09 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >>>> What is the benefit of putting this in nand_spl_simple.c versus another >>>> file? What if someone wants to use this with a different NAND boot >>>> implementation? >>> >>> I would start by questioning the need of a 3rd SPL framework. >> >> The "simple" driver does not work for all hardware. This is why we have >> nand_spl/nand_boot_fsl_elbc.c and others in addition to >> nand_spl/nand_boot.c. It's not a "3rd SPL framework", just a different >> NAND implementation. > > The question boils down to, what are your size constraints? I guess > what I'm saying is, if it's <4kb, it's not using this file nor the > framework.
4K SPLs will use nand_spl_simple.c. It is pretty much a copy of nand_spl/nand_boot.c which 4K SPLs use, and Wolfgang is insisting that no new boards be added to nand_spl, so they must use the new SPL (even if there are no new 4xx boards, presumably such a stance by Wolfgang indicates a desire to see nand_spl go away entirely at some point). > If we've got more than 4kb to work with, it's using the > framework (with changes if needed, of course) and I guess we could move > the function to common/spl/spl_nand.c and add > drivers/mtd/nand/nand_spl_fsl_elbc.c and so on. Now that I've had more > coffee, do I follow your suggestion right? I think so. eLBC is 4K-limited, but IFC is similar and can do an 8K SPL (though we currently don't), and who knows what controllers will come along in the future. -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
