Requiring SPL_DM for new boards?

[Tom Rini]

On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 01:27:06PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2022 at 11:53, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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?
> 
> OK:
> 
> $./tools/moveconfig.py -b
> 
> $ ./tools/moveconfig.py -f SPL ~SPL_DM
> 323 matches
> ...
> 
> $ ./tools/moveconfig.py -f SPL_DM
> 333 matches
> ...

OK, if we start parsing things out, PowerPC is one chunk of that and
won't change. Another chunk of that is sunxi which is a "still making
new SoCs with very small SRAM" and it's worth talking with Andre for
thoughts there. A large swath of the rest is layerscape / imx6/7/8 and
it's worth rfc'ing a patch or two to move their board-specific "select
SPL_DM if SPL" to a higher level ARCH_xxx line. Especially for the imx8*
ones.

-- 
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/20221031/a9512d6b/attachment.sig>