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

[Simon Glass]

Hi Bin,

On 5 February 2016 at 21:29, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?

Yes I suspect you are right. But we do want eventually move all this
compat stuff into drivers. I'm not sure sure of the best approach yet.
Let's keep an eye on it.

Regards,
Simon