On 8 February 2016 at 23:10, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > 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!
Yes, by this week-end. >> >> 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. -- Jagan. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot