[U-Boot] [PATCH 3/4] spi: omap3: Convert to DM

[Jagan Teki]

On 11 February 2016 at 02:30, Christophe Ricard
<christophe.ricard at gmail.com> 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.
>
> Are you ok in applying patch 1 and 2 only ? or should i send a new serie
> with only patch 1 and 2 ?

3/4 looks not good to me with so many ifdef, may we can do something
clear similar to kirkwood_spi does.

>
> On 10/02/2016 20:16, Jagan Teki wrote:
>>
>> On 8 February 2016 at 23:26, Jagan Teki <jteki at openedev.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 8 February 2016 at 23:10, Tom Rini <trini at 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 at 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 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Convert omap3_spi driver to DM and keep compatibility with
>>>>>>>>>> previous
>>>>>>>>>> mode.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Christophe Ricard <christophe-h.ricard at 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> U-Boot mailing list
> U-Boot at lists.denx.de
> http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot



-- 
Jagan.