[U-Boot] [RESEND PATCH v7 00/11] rockchip: Add new rk3399 boards

[Jagan Teki]

Hi Philipp,

On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 6:10 PM Philipp Tomsich
<philipp.tomsich at theobroma-systems.com> wrote:
>
> Jagan,
>
> On 09.05.2019, at 14:36, Jagan Teki <jagan at amarulasolutions.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 6:01 PM Paul Kocialkowski
> <paul.kocialkowski at bootlin.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 2019-05-09 at 16:15 +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 12:38 PM Paul Kocialkowski
> <paul.kocialkowski at bootlin.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 2019-05-08 at 11:11 +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
>
> (Sorry for the noice, I have missed to send two patches from v7)
>
> This is v7 resend patchset for New rk3399 boards support wrt previous
> version[1]
>
> Unfortunately initial version of creating rk3399-u-boot.dtsi and
> orangepi rk3399 changes are merged, so this is rework on top of
> u-boot-rockchip/master.
>
> Overall this series add support below rk3399 boards
> - NanoPI M4
> - NanoPC T4
> - NanoPI NEO4
> - Orangepi RK3399
> - Rock PI 4
> - Rockpro64
>
> All the respective dts(i) files are synced from Linux 5.1-rc2 and few
> dts(i) from linux-next.
>
> SoC u-boot specific dtsi rk3399-u-boot.dtsi changes are part of another
> series [3].
>
> Out of all above boards Rockpor64, Rock-PI and Nanopi NEO4 would support
> booting via Rockchip miniloader as of now.
>
>
> Could you send these two boards in a separate series so that we avoid
> merging them for now (because SPL support is broken) and then re-
> iterate the series later with the DDR bringup? Or maybe find a way to
> disable SPL support, but in any case, it's not ok to merge a board with
> SPL enabled and broken.
>
>
> I have explained the details about this concern on v2 [1], thought you
> would comeback on the same line instead here.
>
>
> Yes, you have already explained the issue, but I don't think it's
> enough a justification to merge broken SPL support. If it was only
> partial or limited, it would be fine, but here it's just broken.
>
> Anyway, making SPL as an optional is not an idea to go with Mainline
> as we make many decisions with regards to make SPL is mandatory.
>
>
> Yes I think making SPL mandatory is a good idea, so that's why I'm
> suggesting that we don't merge the boards until they have SPL support.
>
> Since the DDR is show stopper here (and it would really need a good
> amount of time, since it effect the other boards), I can go with TPL
> enabled boot-chain where ddr bin, SPL and U-Boot proper can be part of
> booting stages. This way we can avoid skipping SPL usage, and many
> config changes to make SPL optional.
>
>
> Honestly I don't really see the point of merging these boards at all if
> they don't have SPL support. People who really want to use them with
> the rockchip blob can cherry-pick the patches from the list in the
> meantime.
>
> It also creates incentive for people to free the DDR init, since that
> becomes a condition to have the board upstream.
>
> What do you think?
>
>
> I don't know whether you get my point or not? these boards are not
> merged yet. What I'm saying is we are going to support them with
> TPL-enabled, that was SPL can make use of these boards which still a
> valid boot-chain. moreover this way can avoid touching core files and
> no specific change require while supporting ddr dtsi.
>
>
> On some boards, there will be no TPL and only a SPL stage that will
> initialise DRAM (as the move to having TPL on the RK3399 is optional).

True, my suggestion here the same. SPL is mandatory.

>
> I agree with Paul that the DRAM init should be part of U-Boot whenever
> we add new boards and make an open DRAM init a prerequisite.

True, I agree this point. Since we have an option of having DRAM init
at TPL I'm proposing this boot-chain (along with commitment on dram
work).