[U-Boot] [PATCH] spl: add a new stub spl_early_board_init() for early SoC-specific setup

[Simon Glass]

Hi Masahiro,

On 9 March 2016 at 02:49, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro at socionext.com> wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
>
> 2016-03-09 8:33 GMT+09:00 Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>:
>> Hi Masahiro,
>>
>> On 8 March 2016 at 04:37, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro at socionext.com> wrote:
>>> We are generally supposed to implement SoC/board-specific SPL init
>>> code in spl_board_init(), but it is called after spl_init() where the
>>> FDT is setup and devices are bound.
>>>
>>> This new stub spl_early_board_init() would be useful to put something
>>> really SoC-specific, for example, debug_uart_init().
>>>
>>> In fact, I was hit by some problems on FDT setup when I was tackling
>>> on a completely new platform.  I wished I could use the debug UART
>>> earlier in situations like that.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro at socionext.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>>  common/spl/spl.c | 6 ++++++
>>>  include/spl.h    | 1 +
>>>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/common/spl/spl.c b/common/spl/spl.c
>>> index e5167bf..df85b09 100644
>>> --- a/common/spl/spl.c
>>> +++ b/common/spl/spl.c
>>> @@ -150,6 +150,10 @@ static int spl_ram_load_image(void)
>>>  }
>>>  #endif
>>>
>>> +void __weak spl_early_board_init(void)
>>> +{
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>  int spl_init(void)
>>>  {
>>>         int ret;
>>> @@ -344,6 +348,8 @@ void board_init_r(gd_t *dummy1, ulong dummy2)
>>>  {
>>>         int i;
>>>
>>> +       spl_early_board_init();
>>
>> Why not put this in board_init_f()? That is a little earlier.
>
> The reason is board_init_f() for SPL is not placed in the common place.
>
> We can move it there if it is OK to deal with it per arch.
>
>
>> In fact you can replace that function with your own version.
>
> Right.  This is an alternative.
>
> The definition of board_init_f() in arch/arm/lib/spl.c is short enough.
>
> I can copy it into arch/arm/mach-uniphier/ and adjust it for my own use.
>
>
>> (although it would be better if we had a single board_init_f() and
>> called out to board-specific code from there.)
>>
>>> +
>>>         debug(">>spl:board_init_r()\n");
>>>
>
> So, what shall we do about this?

Well, a refactor, I think. I have not looked at how hard it is, but
it's probably the next thing to do to make SPL more similar for all
boards.

Regards,
Simon