Requiring SPL_DM for new boards?

[Tom Rini]

On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 07:44:01PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 at 10:26, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 09:56:44AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > What do people think about requiring SPL_DM for new boards? Would that
> > > cause any problems?
> > >
> > > There is not much use of of-platdata (compiling the DT into C to save
> > > space) - is that because it doesn't work for people?
> > >
> > > I am particularly keen to drop the old block interface from SPL. It
> > > seems to me that boards that can use that might have enough space to
> > > enable SPL_DM and SPL_DM_BLK? What do people think?
> >
> > I don't think this works. The problem is we aren't seeing new SoCs that
> > have a large initial amount of memory but rather many continuing to have
> > 32KiB or similar tiny sizes. So, I'd rather continue to go with saying
> > it's optional, but that we won't introduce new SPL functionality that
> > can be DM or not DM, but only new functionality that needs SPL_DM and
> > if platforms want it, but have limited memory, we need to go TPL->SPL in
> > that case.
> 
> OK I see.
> 
> What do you think of a migration method for boards which don't use
> SPL_DM, so they migrate to TPL? Would that cause a lot of problems?

I'm not sure what it gains us. Maybe the first step here is to see what
the list of non-DM_SPL platforms / SoCs are?

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 659 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20221030/5af8e834/attachment.sig>