[U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] spi: kirkwood: Full dm conversion

[Stefan Roese]

Hi Chris,

On 02.05.2018 23:56, Chris Packham wrote:
> Hi All,
> On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 10:53 PM Stefan Roese <sr at denx.de> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Simon,
> 
>> On 01.05.2018 12:54, Simon Guinot wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 11:28:28AM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 2:21 PM, Simon Guinot <
> simon.guinot at sequanux.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:30:00AM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Jagan Teki <
> jagan at amarulasolutions.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> kirkwood now support dt along with platform data,
>>>>>>> respective boards need to switch into dm for the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Added all board mainatiner, using this driver on their relevant
>>>>>> boards. So try to switch to DM_SPI(SPI_FLASH) before migration
>>>>>> deadline expires.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Jagan,
>>>>>
>>>>> And what is the deadline exactly ?
>>>>
>>>> See DM_SPI/SPI_FLASH migration details from,
> doc/driver-model/MIGRATION.txt
>>>
>>> Thanks for letting me know Jagan...
> 
>> Just to be clear here. The older Marvell platforms Orion and Kirkwood
>> completely lack DM (Driver-Model) and DT (Device-Tree) support in
>> U-Boot. This needs to be added (similar to what I've done to the
>> newer parts beginning with Armada XP / 38x) so that the SPI driver
>> (and others) can be used as DM-enabled driver.
> 
>> Please see arch/arm/mach-mvebu/ for more details here.
> 
>> Any work on this is greatly appreciated as I fear that the support
>> for these older SoC's might get dropped completely otherwise soon.
> 
> I had a quick try on one of the kirkwood based boards I have. It was pretty
> easy to bring in the dts files from Linux and get some basic stuff working.
> I started with i2c since I can still boot without it, I haven't been brave
> enough to try spi yet.
> 
> Hopefully I can spend a bit more time on it over the weekend.

This sound just great. Thanks.

> In terms of a long-term plan. I could upstream support for our board, we
> still include it in the source we distribute as part of our GPL compliance.
> Since it's a older board that has been fairly stable we're not doing a lot
> of development on it. My motivation for retaining support for kirkwood is
> just in case we have some other EOL part that requires us to release a new
> bootloader. I could do a blind conversion of other in-tree kirkwood boards
> but my ability to test them would be quite limited.

This "blind conversion" is definitely much better, than the removal.
Others might be able to test some of the boards. I don't have any of
those - so I can't help out here.

Thanks,
Stefan