[U-Boot] [PATCH 01/18] spl: improve spi configuration

[Marek Vasut]

On Wednesday, August 06, 2014 at 12:53:19 PM, Nikita Kiryanov wrote:
> On 05/08/14 17:11, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 05, 2014 at 03:28:04 PM, Nikita Kiryanov wrote:
> >> On 03/08/14 16:44, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, August 03, 2014 at 09:34:31 AM, Nikita Kiryanov wrote:
> >>>> Currently we can define CONFIG_SPL_SPI_<any parameter except SPI
> >>>> MODE>. Define CONFIG_SPL_SPI_MODE option, and provide a default value
> >>>> for backwards compatibility.
> >>>> Default values are also provided for the rest of the spi_flash_probe
> >>>> parameters (like we do in cmd_sf), to help with config file brevity.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Cc: Jagannadha Sutradharudu Teki <jagannadh.teki at gmail.com>
> >>>> Cc: Tom Rini <trini at ti.com>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Nikita Kiryanov <nikita at compulab.co.il>
> >>> 
> >>> You might actually be even more bold and check if you cannot fall back
> >>> to the CONFIG_DEFAULT_SPI_MODE etc. What do you think ?
> >> 
> >> Not a fan of the idea. It will:
> >> - Complicate the #ifdefs
> >> - Complicate the relationship between CONFIG_DEFAULT_SPI_* and
> >> 
> >>     CONFIG_SPL_SPI_* #defines
> >> 
> >> - Not get much use: most boards do not #define CONFIG_DEFAULT_SPI_*
> >> 
> >>     values in the config files, and of the ones that do, only two
> >>     (dra7xx_evm and cm_fx6) use SPI in SPL.
> > 
> > On the other hand, it's now only a matter of time until we get
> > CONFIG_TPL_SPI_* m which gives us _another_ set of defines. So the
> > question is -- what is your proposition to keep the amount of new ad-hoc
> > defines low and cater for this case?
> 
> OK I think I may have misunderstood your suggestion. You wanted to
> replace CONFIG_SPL_SPI_* #defines with CONFIG_DEFAULT_SPI_* #defines,
> not use both, right?
> Based on cursory grepping, this seems possible, though I think
> CONFIG_SF_DEFAULT_* is a better candidate.
> 
> I'll prepare a patch..

Yep, thank you!

Best regards,
Marek Vasut