On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:00:55PM +0100, Christophe Ricard wrote:
Hi Jagan,
My understanding is that some work are ongoing around spl in order to support correctly DM for all spi/i2c bus drivers. As a consequence patch 4 got differed.
Hopefully Simon or Tom can comment.
Yes, I deferred 4/4 because until we convert all of the platforms to DM (and Simon is making progress on what's required there).
Are you ok in applying patch 1 and 2 only ? or should i send a new serie with only patch 1 and 2 ?
1, 2 and 3? should be fine to go now and you shouldn't need to re-send them.
Best Regards Christophe
On 10/02/2016 20:16, Jagan Teki wrote:
On 8 February 2016 at 23:26, Jagan Teki jteki@openedev.com wrote:
On 8 February 2016 at 23:10, Tom Rini trini@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.
Any idea 4/4 got differed in patchwork [1], do we have next version patches for these?
[1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/569241/
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 trini@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.ricard@gmail.com wrote: >>>>Convert omap3_spi driver to DM and keep compatibility with previous >>>>mode. >>>> >>>>Signed-off-by: Christophe Ricard christophe-h.ricard@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.