On 04/11/2017 11:14 PM, Santan Kumar wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: York Sun [mailto:york.sun@nxp.com] Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 10:15 PM To: Santan Kumar santan.kumar@nxp.com; u-boot@lists.denx.de Cc: Priyanka Jain priyanka.jain@nxp.com; Abhimanyu Saini abhimanyu.saini@nxp.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2][v4] armv8: ls2080a: Reorganise NAND_BOOT code in config flag
On 04/03/2017 03:58 AM, Santan Kumar wrote:
Add CONFIG_NAND_BOOT config flag to organise NAND_BOOT specific
code
in config flag like -nand-boot specfic errata errata_rcw_src() -CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_DST,etc
Signed-off-by: Santan Kumar santan.kumar@nxp.com Signed-off-by: Priyanka Jain priyanka.jain@nxp.com Signed-off-by: Abhimanyu Saini abhimanyu.saini@nxp.com
Changes for v4: Rebased to latest codebase Incorporated York's comments to remove CONFIG_SPL and move CONFIG_SPL_NAND_SUPPORT to kconfig
arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/soc.c | 2 +- configs/ls2080aqds_nand_defconfig | 1 + configs/ls2080ardb_nand_defconfig | 1 + include/configs/ls2080a_common.h | 2 ++ include/configs/ls2080aqds.h | 4 +++- 5 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/soc.c b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/soc.c index 9e3cdd7..76e3af0 100644 --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/soc.c +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/soc.c @@ -134,7 +134,7 @@ void erratum_a009635(void)
static void erratum_rcw_src(void) { -#if defined(CONFIG_SPL) +#if defined(CONFIG_SPL) && defined(CONFIG_NAND_BOOT) u32 __iomem *dcfg_ccsr = (u32 __iomem *)DCFG_BASE; u32 __iomem *dcfg_dcsr = (u32 __iomem *)DCFG_DCSR_BASE; u32 val; diff --git a/configs/ls2080aqds_nand_defconfig b/configs/ls2080aqds_nand_defconfig index 2a649c5..7fe4262 100644 --- a/configs/ls2080aqds_nand_defconfig +++ b/configs/ls2080aqds_nand_defconfig @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ CONFIG_FIT=y CONFIG_FIT_VERBOSE=y CONFIG_OF_BOARD_SETUP=y CONFIG_OF_STDOUT_VIA_ALIAS=y +CONFIG_NAND_BOOT=y CONFIG_SYS_EXTRA_OPTIONS="NAND, LS2080A"
Can we get rid of the extra options for NAND? I think it can be replaced by CONFIG_NAND_BOOT, can't it?
[Santan Kumar] CONFIG_NAND_BOOT has been added for the requirements of NAND boot specification While NAND is being used for NAND support specification both are using for difference purpose.
OK. I will let it go for now. In long term we will convert this option to Kconfig.
I have sent a patch to get rid of the LS2080A do you don't have to worry about that. http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/746782/
[Santan Kumar] yes, After this patch I don't need LS2080A in extra option. Do I need to send next version to remove this or you will take care in your patch?
I will take care of it.
York