[U-Boot] [U-Boot, V4, 10/13] spl: add support for alternative boot device

[Tom Rini]

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 12:46:58PM +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
> On 19.11.2015 12:19, Nikita Kiryanov wrote:
> >Hi Tom,
> >
> >On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 05:33:20PM -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
> >>On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 05:11:51PM +0200, Nikita Kiryanov wrote:
> >>
> >>>Introduce spl_boot_list array, which defines a list of boot devices
> >>>that SPL will try before hanging. By default this list will consist
> >>>of only spl_boot_device(), but board_boot_order() can be overridden
> >>>by board code to populate the array with custom values.
> >>>
> >>>Signed-off-by: Nikita Kiryanov <nikita at compulab.co.il>
> >>>Cc: Igor Grinberg <grinberg at compulab.co.il>
> >>>Cc: Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com>
> >>>Cc: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> >>>Reviewed-by: Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com>
> >>>Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> >>
> >>So, a problem with this patch is that we push the x600 board, which is
> >>an 8KiB SPL target, over the line.  I feel like maybe we need a
> >>follow-up patch that makes announcing depend not on libcommon (which
> >>x600 needs) but something else to know that there's a reason to
> >>announce.
> >
> >Based on the content of your reply I'm guessing you're referring to the
> >next patch, not this one.
> >
> >I suppose that announcing can be made into an optional feature. However,
> >I also think that since printing is an optional feature that can greatly
> >increase binary size, it shouldn't be coupled with other, often
> >non-optional libcommon features the way it currently is via
> >CONFIG_SPL_LIBCOMMON_SUPPORT. The best fix in my opinion would be to
> >implement a way to exclude printing support from SPL even if libcommon
> >is included (CONFIG_SPL_SILENT that replaces printfs with empty stubs?).
> >
> >This will also make it possible to remove all those #ifdef
> >CONFIG_SPL_LIBCOMMON_SUPPORT checks that appear all over the SPL code.
> 
> I think that my recently posted tiny-printf patches:
> 
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/545034/
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/545033/
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/545036/
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/545035/
> 
> can solve this size issue on x600 (and perhaps other) board.

If you can see if x600 builds again in mainline that would be good :)

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20151119/8ffdd81f/attachment.sig>