On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 01:02:56PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > On 08/27/2012 12:50 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 12:14:30PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > >> 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. > > > > When do you plan to try and do the conversion? :) > > I started a conversion of an eLBC board recently, but ran into some bugs > that I couldn't squash by the end of the merge window -- at which point > the timeslice expiration hit and its priority dropped. > > I may be able to resume next week (this week is Linux Plumbers). > > > I kludged (but think it would still work) hawkboard to 887 bytes over 4kb > > and I see bamboo is > > 736 bytes under, leaving a 151 byte gap (in this very quick and somewhat > > silly SWAG). So maybe we can use this framework for 4KB systems. > > Perhaps for some of them. How much does the framework add?
For hawkboard (davinci and NAND) we grew by 894 bytes. Doing some re-organization of the code just now I've got that growth down to 766 bytes. Some of that reduction I had in the other quick swag I was doing however. -- Tom _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
