On Sat, Feb 06, 2016 at 11:27:21PM +0100, Christophe Ricard wrote: > Hi Simon, Tom, > > I assume the approach you are taking is also valuable for the i2c: > omap24xx patch serie: > http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2016-January/241676.html > > What are your recommendation about the pending patches ? > Should i send back only the one not taking care of the DM conversion > and send another serie later ? > > I have seen some work ongoing on this topic on the u-boot-fdt tree > on the spl-working branch. > Is there a more accurate place to follow this work ?
For i2c, aside from needing to defer removing the non-DM code for a while yet, there were some review comments to address in a v2 or answer as intentional. For SPI, it's all looking good and I'm assuming Jagan will have a SPI PR soon. Thanks! > > Best Regards > Christophe > > On 26/01/2016 02:55, Peng Fan wrote: > >Hi Simon, > > > >On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 06:11:24PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > >>+Hans > >> > >>Hi Tom, > >> > >>On 21 January 2016 at 05:24, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > >>>On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 07:46:15PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > >>>>+Mugunthan, Tom > >>>> > >>>>On 17 January 2016 at 03:56, Christophe Ricard > >>>><christophe.ric...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>Convert omap3_spi driver to DM and keep compatibility with previous > >>>>>mode. > >>>>> > >>>>>Signed-off-by: Christophe Ricard <christophe-h.ric...@st.com> > >>>>>--- > >>>>> > >>>>> drivers/spi/Kconfig | 6 + > >>>>> drivers/spi/omap3_spi.c | 439 > >>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > >>>>> drivers/spi/omap3_spi.h | 14 +- > >>>>> 3 files changed, 402 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-) > >>>>This is a pretty painful conversion, with lots of #ifdefs. I think it > >>>>would be possible to use a common pointer type and reduce this. > >>>> > >>>>But perhaps it does not matter - how long must we be in the state of > >>>>supporting legacy SPI? Can we convert all TI boards to driver model? > >>>We _really_ need some way to support more than one board per binary > >>>before we can move everything to DM only. > >>> > >>>I think we can kind of do this today if we stick to using platform data > >>>for everything that's board-specific rather than SoC-defined. What we > >>>talked about at ELCE was auto-generating the pdata from the device tree, > >>>I think. > >>We discussed this on IRC but since that doesn't exist as far as the > >>mailing list is concerned... > >> > >>The current plan is: > >> > >>- Adjust build system to optionally build a u-boot.img in FIT format > >>that includes the U-Boot binary and >1 device tree files > >>- Adjust SPL to load this > >>- Add a way for SPL to determine which device tree to select (by > >>calling a board-specific function) > >>- Have SPL pass this selected device tree to U-Boot when it starts > >Can dtb be sperated from the final u-boot.img, if using SPL? > >I mean let SPL load the u-boot.img and the dtb to correct DRAM address. > >And the dtb is shared with linux kernel. > > > >Regards, > >Peng. > >>Thus we should be able to support more than one board with a single > >>U-Boot image. Of course this is not a perfect solution (e.g. it is > >>inefficient since the DTs are likely to be largely the same) but it > >>should be a good first step. > >> > >>I'm going to try this out with sunxi initially and plan to get some > >>patches out by the end of the week. > >> > >>Regards, > >>Simon > >>_______________________________________________ > >>U-Boot mailing list > >>U-Boot@lists.denx.de > >>http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot > -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot