[U-Boot] Pull request: u-boot-spi/master

[Jagan Teki]

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 3:58 PM, Daniel Schwierzeck
<daniel.schwierzeck at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 22.01.2018 21:55, Álvaro Fernández Rojas wrote:
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>>
>> El 22/01/2018 a las 21:26, Daniel Schwierzeck escribió:
>>>
>>> On 22.01.2018 18:14, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 05:49:39PM +0100, Daniel Schwierzeck wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 22.01.2018 13:58, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 11:20:56AM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Tom,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please pull this PR.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks!
>>>>>>> Jagan.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The following changes since commit
>>>>>>> 98691a60abffb44303d7dae6e9e699d0daded930:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    Merge git://git.denx.de/u-boot-rockchip (2018-01-09 13:28:51
>>>>>>> -0500)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> are available in the git repository at:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    git://git.denx.de/u-boot-spi.git master
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> for you to fetch changes up to
>>>>>>> b23c685c6f295da3c01dd487f0e003b70299af91:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    mips: bmips: enable the SPI flash on the Comtrend AR-5387un
>>>>>>> (2018-01-22 10:39:13 +0530)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> NAK:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> commit 19e3a4856c1cba751a9ecb3931ff0d96a7f169be
>>>>>> Author: Álvaro Fernández Rojas <noltari at gmail.com>
>>>>>> Date:   Sat Jan 20 02:11:34 2018 +0100
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      wait_bit: add 8/16/32 BE/LE versions of wait_for_bit
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      Add 8/16/32 bits and BE/LE versions of wait_for_bit.
>>>>>>      This is needed for reading registers that are not aligned to
>>>>>> 32 bits, and for
>>>>>>      Big Endian platforms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      Signed-off-by: Álvaro Fernández Rojas <noltari at gmail.com>
>>>>>>      Reviewed-by: Daniel Schwierzeck <daniel.schwierzeck at gmail.com>
>>>>>>      Reviewed-by: Jagan Teki <jagan at openedev.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Adds warnings on almost all platforms:
>>>>>> w+(ls1088ardb_qspi_SECURE_BOOT) ../include/wait_bit.h: In function
>>>>>> ?wait_for_bit_be16?:
>>>>>> w+(ls1088ardb_qspi_SECURE_BOOT) ../include/wait_bit.h:76:31:
>>>>>> warning: implicit declaration of function ?readw_be?
>>>>>> [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
>>>>>> w+(ls1088ardb_qspi_SECURE_BOOT) ../include/wait_bit.h: In function
>>>>>> ?wait_for_bit_be32?:         w+(ls1088ardb_qspi_SECURE_BOOT)
>>>>>> ../include/wait_bit.h:78:31: warning: implicit declaration of
>>>>>> function ?readl_be? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Tom, would this change to the patch be acceptable?
>>>>>
>>>>> --- a/include/wait_bit.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/wait_bit.h
>>>>> @@ -73,8 +73,12 @@ static inline int wait_for_bit_##sfx(const void
>>>>> *reg,            \
>>>>>
>>>>>   BUILD_WAIT_FOR_BIT(8, u8, readb)
>>>>>   BUILD_WAIT_FOR_BIT(le16, u16, readw)
>>>>> +#ifdef readw_be
>>>>>   BUILD_WAIT_FOR_BIT(be16, u16, readw_be)
>>>>> +#endif
>>>>>   BUILD_WAIT_FOR_BIT(le32, u32, readl)
>>>>> +#ifdef readl_be
>>>>>   BUILD_WAIT_FOR_BIT(be32, u32, readl_be)
>>>>> +#endif
>>>>>
>>>>>   #endif
>>>>>
>>>>> This wouldn't define wait_bit_be*() on archs which doesn't implement
>>>>> readw_be or readl_be.
>>>>>
>>>>> A build with the updated patch is scheduled at
>>>>> https://travis-ci.org/danielschwierzeck/u-boot/builds/331899381
>>>> That seems reasonable, thanks!
>>>>
>>> Álvaro, could you send a v10 where the patch "wait_bit: add 8/16/32
>>> BE/LE versions of wait_for_bit" is fixed like above? Thanks.
>> Sure, but I think this alternative would be much cleaner:
>> https://gist.github.com/Noltari/3e6ed4648b87484c73ca22e2f533f9b0
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>
> I had a similar idea at first but a #ifdef within a #define is not possible and AFAIK not implemented in C standards.
>
> Have you tried it? With nested #ifdef I'm getting:
>
> $ ./tools/buildman/buildman -o /tmp/bm -b master..wait_for_bit aarch64
> Building 1 commit for 111 boards (8 threads, 1 job per thread)
>    50   11   50 /111    lion-rk3368
>
> vs.
>
> $ ./tools/buildman/buildman -o /tmp/bm -b master..wait_for_bit_2 aarch64
> Building 1 commit for 111 boards (8 threads, 1 job per thread)
>    98   13    0 /111    0:00:06  : ls1046ardb_emm
>
> Also a Travis CI build already shows several broken builds:
> https://travis-ci.org/danielschwierzeck/u-boot/builds/332205310
>
> Maybe a yet better solution would be if each arch implements the same common set of I/O primitives like Linux is doing.

Recent patch from Alvaro, seems fine to built all [1]

[1] https://travis-ci.org/openedev/u-boot-spi/builds/332390626