[PATCH v3] arch: arm: Kconfig: Enable BOOTSTD_FULL for Rockchip SoCs

[Shantur Rathore]

Hi Kever,

On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 10:55 AM Kever Yang <kever.yang at rock-chips.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Shantur, Tom,
>
> On 2023/12/10 04:45, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 09, 2023 at 07:49:04PM +0000, Shantur Rathore wrote:
> >> On Sat, Dec 9, 2023 at 7:18 PM Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 10:52:02AM +0000, Shantur Rathore wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Tom / Kever
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 5:24 PM Shantur Rathore <i at shantur.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Rockchip SoCs can support wide range of bootflows.
> >>>>> Without full bootflow commands, it can be difficult to
> >>>>> figure out issues if any, hence enable by default.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Shantur Rathore <i at shantur.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (no changes since v1)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   arch/arm/Kconfig | 1 +
> >>>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig
> >>>>> index d812685c98..fca6ef6d7e 100644
> >>>>> --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig
> >>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig
> >>>>> @@ -1986,6 +1986,7 @@ config ARCH_ROCKCHIP
> >>>>>          imply CMD_DM
> >>>>>          imply DEBUG_UART_BOARD_INIT
> >>>>>          imply BOOTSTD_DEFAULTS
> >>>>> +       imply BOOTSTD_FULL if BOOTSTD_DEFAULTS
> >>>>>          imply FAT_WRITE
> >>>>>          imply SARADC_ROCKCHIP
> >>>>>          imply SPL_SYSRESET
> >>>> Can this please be merged in ?
> >>> I wonder if we shouldn't really globally default to BOOTSTD_FULL if
> >>> BOOTSTD_DEFAULTS for everyone.
> >>>
> >> Its matter of ~21KB in size, unless any platform is really to its
> >> limits it should be alright.
> > Maybe I need to re-check things too, since I wonder how much of that
> > growth is re-enabling things that were removed when dropping the DISTRO
> > stuff, and so for platforms just migrating over now it would be smaller
> > in size if much.
>
> A board maintainer is free to enable this option, but I don't agree to
> enable this for everyone.
>
> Not like rk3399 and rk3588, some of other SoCs always want a clean and
> simple but usable U-Boot,
>
> eg. rk3036 and rk3308 are still in the list.
>

The discussion is what we consider "usable U-Boot"
By default bootstd doesn't have any options and not even to show what
it's going to boot.

Would it be acceptable if BOOTSTD_FULL is enabled for SoCs rather than boards?

Kind regards,
Shantur