Le lundi 20 juillet 2015 à 15:17 +0200, Paul Kocialkowski a écrit : > This patch series adds support for the LG Optimus Black (P970) codename > sniper, > see the commit that introduces the board and config files for a short > description of the device.
Any comment on this series? I would really like to get that new device merged before the merge window ends. Thanks! > This should be applied on top of patches that I have submitted to the list but > were not merged yet, especially: > * omap-common: Common boot code OMAP3 support and cleanup > * omap3: CONFIG_REVISION_TAG ifdef check for get_board_rev > > At this point, support as submitted as this point is minimalistic. It is not > ready for daily use, but introduces the basic elements that are needed to have > a sane base upon which the rest of the device support will be introduced. > > In particular, the device is currently headless, mainly because the display > backlight is not enabled. Other important features such as the MUIC are not > enabled, so USB will only work in U-Boot when the device boots with an USB > cable already attached. In addition, the external MMC is not supported in > U-Boot > either, as it requires support for a separate PMIC. > > A work in progress commit introduces support for (some of) those bits in a > dirty > and non-mergeable way is available at: > http://git.code.paulk.fr/gitweb/?p=u-boot.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/sniper-next > > Having those bits written correctly would require writing some drivers using > the > power framework. In the long run, those would have to use the driver model > API, > which would involve converting the I2C driver to DM as well. This is too much > overhead for now, but it will be done eventually. > > The main problem I see with doing that work now is that I2C DM seems to > heavily > rely on device-tree. Other parts of the OMAP platform support were converted > to > DM but use platform data defined in each board. That solution looks good to > me, > but doesn't work with I2C. Thus, we could either modify the I2C driver to cope > with the lack of device-tree or make the use of device-tree a hard requirement > for driver model, implying that each omap3 boards would have to provide a > device-tree file as well. > > Both solutions look good to me and I'll let experts decide what to do. Either > way, I need to know what the right solution to this problem is to be able to > move forward. > > _______________________________________________ > U-Boot mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
