Dear Benoît Thébaudeau,
> Dear Marek Vasut,
>
> On Friday, April 19, 2013 1:55:31 PM, Benoît Thébaudeau wrote:
> > Dear Marek Vasut,
> >
> > On Friday, April 19, 2013 1:14:16 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > Dear Benoît Thébaudeau,
> > >
> > > > On Friday, April 19, 2013 10:38:48 AM, Benoît Thébaudeau wrote:
> > > > > Dear Marek Vasut,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Friday, April 19, 2013 6:10:51 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > > > Add support for generic NAND SPL via the SPL framework into the
> > > > > > mxc_nand_spl driver. This is basically just a simple rename and
> > > > > > publication of the already implemented functions. To avoid the
> > > > > > old function which are used with the nand_spl/ stuff getting in
> > > > > > the way of NAND SPL framework, the macro CONFIG_SPL_NAND_LEGACY
> > > > > > was introduced and two remaining legacy boards were adjusted.
> > > > > > These board need to be either fixed or removed in the long run,
> > > > > > but I don't have either.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also make sure the requested payload is aligned to full pages,
> > > > > > otherwise this simple driver fails to load the last page.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de>
> > > > > > Cc: Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.b...@aribaud.net>
> > > > > > Cc: Benoît Thébaudeau <benoit.thebaud...@advansee.com>
> > > > > > Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.este...@freescale.com>
> > > > > > Cc: Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com>
> > > > > > Cc: Stefano Babic <sba...@denx.de>
> > > > > > Cc: Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >
> > > > > > drivers/mtd/nand/mxc_nand_spl.c | 13 ++++++++++---
> > > > > > include/configs/mx31pdk.h | 1 +
> > > > > > include/configs/tx25.h | 1 +
> > > > > > 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/mxc_nand_spl.c
> > > > > > b/drivers/mtd/nand/mxc_nand_spl.c
> > > > > > index 09f23c3..8ff03c9 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/mxc_nand_spl.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/mxc_nand_spl.c
> > > > > > @@ -290,7 +290,7 @@ static int is_badblock(int pagenumber)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > return 0;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -static int nand_load(unsigned int from, unsigned int size,
> > > > > > unsigned char *buf)
> > > > > > +int nand_spl_load_image(uint32_t from, unsigned int size, void
> > > > > > *buf)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > {
> > > > > >
> > > > > > int i;
> > > > > > unsigned int page;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > @@ -303,6 +303,7 @@ static int nand_load(unsigned int from,
> > > > > > unsigned int size, unsigned char *buf)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > page = from / CONFIG_SYS_NAND_PAGE_SIZE;
> > > > > > i = 0;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > + size = roundup(size, CONFIG_SYS_NAND_PAGE_SIZE);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > while (i < size / CONFIG_SYS_NAND_PAGE_SIZE) {
> > > > > >
> > > > > > if (nfc_read_page(page, buf) < 0)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > return -1;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > @@ -332,6 +333,7 @@ static int nand_load(unsigned int from,
> > > > > > unsigned int size, unsigned char *buf)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > return 0;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SPL_NAND_SUPPORT_LEGACY
> > > > > >
> > > > > > /*
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * The main entry for NAND booting. It's necessary that SDRAM is
> > > > > > already * configured and available since this code loads the
> > > > > > main U-Boot image
> > > > > >
> > > > > > @@ -345,8 +347,9 @@ void nand_boot(void)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_OFFS and CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_SIZE
> > > > > > must * be aligned to full pages
> > > > > > */
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - if (!nand_load(CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_OFFS,
> > > > > > CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_SIZE, - (uchar
> > > > > > *)CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_DST)) {
> > > > > > + if (!nand_spl_load_image(CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_OFFS,
> > > > > > + CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_SIZE,
> > > > > > + (uchar *)CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_DST)) {
> > > > > >
> > > > > > /* Copy from NAND successful, start U-boot */
> > > > > > uboot = (void *)CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_START;
> > > > > > uboot();
> > > > > >
> > > > > > @@ -364,3 +367,7 @@ void hang(void)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > /* Loop forever */
> > > > > > while (1) ;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +#endif
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +void nand_init(void) {}
> > > > > > +void nand_deselect(void) {}
> > > > > > diff --git a/include/configs/mx31pdk.h
> > > > > > b/include/configs/mx31pdk.h index 1754595..217552e 100644
> > > > > > --- a/include/configs/mx31pdk.h
> > > > > > +++ b/include/configs/mx31pdk.h
> > > > > > @@ -50,6 +50,7 @@
> > > > > >
> > > > > > #define CONFIG_SPL_LDSCRIPT "arch/$(ARCH)/cpu/u-boot-
spl.lds"
> > > > > > #define CONFIG_SPL_MAX_SIZE 2048
> > > > > > #define CONFIG_SPL_NAND_SUPPORT
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +#define CONFIG_SPL_NAND_SUPPORT_LEGACY
> > > > > >
> > > > > > #define CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE 0x87dc0000
> > > > > > #define CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE 0x87e00000
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/include/configs/tx25.h b/include/configs/tx25.h
> > > > > > index e72f8f6..7c362d0 100644
> > > > > > --- a/include/configs/tx25.h
> > > > > > +++ b/include/configs/tx25.h
> > > > > > @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@
> > > > > >
> > > > > > #define CONFIG_SPL_LDSCRIPT "arch/$(ARCH)/cpu/u-
boot-
> > >
> > > spl.lds"
> > >
> > > > > > #define CONFIG_SPL_MAX_SIZE 2048
> > > > > > #define CONFIG_SPL_NAND_SUPPORT
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +#define CONFIG_SPL_NAND_SUPPORT_LEGACY
> > > > > >
> > > > > > #define CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE 0x810c0000
> > > > > > #define CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE 0x81200000
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > 1.7.11.7
> > > > >
> > > > > This is not about legacy vs. non-legacy. This is about basic vs.
> > > > > more featured
> > > > > SPL because of SPL size constraints. So what about dropping
> > > > > CONFIG_SPL_NAND_SUPPORT_LEGACY and testing for CONFIG_SPL_FRAMEWORK
> > > > > definition
> > > > > instead?
> > >
> > > I was thinking about that, but the symbol is unrelated to NAND.
> >
> > Well, it's CONFIG_SPL_FRAMEWORK + CONFIG_SPL_NAND_SUPPORT that defines
> > the other
> > implementation, and CONFIG_SPL_NAND_SUPPORT triggers the build of
> > mxc_nand_spl.c
> > for SPL, so the common point is CONFIG_SPL_FRAMEWORK.
> >
> > > I still think
> > > it's either a matter of fixing for new SPL or removing those two
> > > boards. The
> > > nand_spl/ stuff shall be removed ASAP.
> >
> > Removing those boards is not a solution.
> >
> > Is it really about "new" SPL? The generic SPL is enabled by CONFIG_SPL,
> > and CONFIG_SPL_FRAMEWORK is a sub-option. If the generic SPL rules
> > imposed to use the SPL framework functions, there would be no such
> > sub-option. So it looks like
> > these boards are complying to the new SPL rules.
> >
> > We could see if using CONFIG_SPL_FRAMEWORK would still allow the SPL to
> > fit in
> > 2 kiB in order to drop this function, but if it does not fit, the new SPL
> > rules
> > should still make it possible to have a solution for any board having SPL
> > size
> > constraints.
>
> I've just quickly build-tested the hack-patch below to have a guess of the
> SPL size for mx31pdk with CONFIG_SPL_FRAMEWORK, and I get 3.9 kiB, so way
> more than the maximum 2 kiB. Hence, these boards can't unfortunately be
> made more generic, but it's not a reason to remove them. The generic SPL
> must allow such hardware to be supported by U-Boot.
See the other email for my other idea. Either we can go with that or I can
focus
on making use of the regular MXC NAND driver on mx5, since there's no 2KiB
limit
there.
[...]
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
