[U-Boot] [PATCH 01/10] fdtdec: Add compatible string for Intel IvyBridge FSP

[Bin Meng]

Hi Simon,

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
>> Hi Bin,
>>
>> On 11 December 2015 at 03:55, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Use "intel,ivybridge-fsp" for Intel IvyBridge FSP compatible string.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>>  include/fdtdec.h | 1 +
>>>  lib/fdtdec.c     | 1 +
>>>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/fdtdec.h b/include/fdtdec.h
>>> index 7fe657d..c515a3c 100644
>>> --- a/include/fdtdec.h
>>> +++ b/include/fdtdec.h
>>> @@ -169,6 +169,7 @@ enum fdt_compat_id {
>>>         COMPAT_ALTERA_SOCFPGA_DWMMC,    /* SoCFPGA DWMMC controller */
>>>         COMPAT_INTEL_BAYTRAIL_FSP,      /* Intel Bay Trail FSP */
>>>         COMPAT_INTEL_BAYTRAIL_FSP_MDP,  /* Intel FSP memory-down params */
>>> +       COMPAT_INTEL_IVYBRIDGE_FSP,     /* Intel Ivy Bridge FSP */
>>>
>>>         COMPAT_COUNT,
>>>  };
>>> diff --git a/lib/fdtdec.c b/lib/fdtdec.c
>>> index 82d0090..002594d 100644
>>> --- a/lib/fdtdec.c
>>> +++ b/lib/fdtdec.c
>>> @@ -73,6 +73,7 @@ static const char * const compat_names[COMPAT_COUNT] = {
>>>         COMPAT(ALTERA_SOCFPGA_DWMMC, "altr,socfpga-dw-mshc"),
>>>         COMPAT(COMPAT_INTEL_BAYTRAIL_FSP, "intel,baytrail-fsp"),
>>>         COMPAT(COMPAT_INTEL_BAYTRAIL_FSP_MDP, "intel,baytrail-fsp-mdp"),
>>> +       COMPAT(COMPAT_INTEL_IVYBRIDGE_FSP, "intel,ivybridge-fsp"),
>>>  };
>>>
>>>  const char *fdtdec_get_compatible(enum fdt_compat_id id)
>>> --
>>> 1.8.2.1
>>>
>>
>> Acked-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>> Tested on link (ivybridge non-FSP)
>> Tested-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>>
>> We should create an FSP uclass I think.
>
> Maybe, I will add this in my todo list for next release.
>

I looked into the FSP uclass today. Looks if want to do this, we have
to move x86_fsp_init() call to a much later phase, ie: after
initf_dm() is called. I am afraid this does not bring us a bigger
benefits. What do you think?

Regards,
Bin