[U-Boot] [PATCH 00/16] RFC: Board init using driver model

[Simon Glass]

Hi Igor,

On 20 March 2017 at 01:30, Igor Grinberg <grinberg at compulab.co.il> wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On 03/19/17 20:59, Simon Glass wrote:
>> At present we have a lot of ad-hoc init functions related to boards, for
>> example board_early_init_f(), board_misc_init_f() and dram_init().
>>
>> There are used in different ways by different boards as useful hooks to
>> do the required init and sequence it correctly. Some functions are always
>> enabled but have a __weak default. Some are controlled by the existence
>> of a CONFIG.
>>
>> There are two main init sequences: board_init_f() (f for running from
>> read-only flash) which runs before relocation and board_init_r() (r for
>> relocated) which runs afterwards.
>>
>> One problem with the current sequence is that it has a lot of
>> arch-specific #ifdefs around various functions. There are also #ifdefs
>> for various features. There has been quite a bit of discussion about how
>> to tidy this up and at least one RFC series[1].
>>
>> Now that we have driver model we can use this to deal with the init
>> sequences. This approach has several advantages:
>>
>> - We have a path to remove the #ifdefs
>> - It is easy for multiple parts of the code to implement the same hook
>> - We can track what is called and what is not
>> - We don't need weak functions
>> - We can eventually adjust the sequence to improve naming or to add new
>> init phases
>> - It provides a model for how we might deal with ft_board_setup() and
>> friends
>
> I haven't got this one yet from the patchset.
> May be I need to look closer...

It is not included in this patch set. I just mean that we could do a
similar scheme with those functions.

>
>>
>> This series starts the process of replacing the pre-relocation init
>> sequence with a driver-model solution. It defines a uclass, adds tests
>> and converts sandbox and a few x86 boards over to use this new setup.
>>
>> This series is not ready for use yet as the rest of the init sequence
>> hooks need to be converted. But there is enough here to show the idea.
>>
>> Comments welcome.
>
> Overall, it sounds like a great idea!

I'll do another spin and see if I can tighten it up a little.

>
> --
> Regards,
> Igor.

Regards,
Simon