Hi Bin, On 3 December 2015 at 10:14, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: >> +Jagan >> >> Hi Bin, >> >> On 1 December 2015 at 18:41, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Simon, >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 12:32 AM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: >>> > Hi Bin, >>> > >>> > On 28 November 2015 at 05:45, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> Every board has one dedicated type of SPI flash, hence it is >>> >> unnecessary to include multiple SPI flash drivers. >>> >> >>> >> For QEMU and coreboot (default build of coreboot is also QEMU), >>> >> SPI flash is not supported. Remove those SPI flash drivers. >>> >> >>> >> Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> >>> >> --- >>> >> >>> >> configs/bayleybay_defconfig | 2 -- >>> >> configs/chromebook_link_defconfig | 2 -- >>> >> configs/chromebox_panther_defconfig | 2 -- >>> >> configs/coreboot-x86_defconfig | 4 ---- >>> >> configs/crownbay_defconfig | 3 --- >>> >> configs/galileo_defconfig | 2 -- >>> >> configs/minnowmax_defconfig | 3 --- >>> >> configs/qemu-x86_defconfig | 4 ---- >>> >> 8 files changed, 22 deletions(-) >>> > >>> > What is the benefit of this? I see it removes a few lines in a data >>> > table. Does it matter? >>> >>> Maybe we should ask the other way around, why do we create so many >>> flash driver Kconfig option? I believe the intention was footprint. >>> Besides the footprint issue, having just one flash driver in each >>> board makes it very clear instead of causing confusion. Looks other >>> board defconfig files only select one.
Are you talking about flash vendor config or CONFIG_SPI_FLASH? >> >> They are a hangover from when we had a separate driver for each one. >> Jagan put a lot of effort into removing all the semi-duplicated code. >> >> Maybe we should prune down these options? >> > > But if we already spent a lot of effort into removing all the > semi-duplicated code, we should not have converted those flash driver > to Kconfig options before. > > See commit d5af92315bb48740f16bf8817f38e227d3076905 "sf: kconfig: add > kconfig options for spi flashes" > > I suspect we may remove most of these SPI flash macros, but at least > SST flash macro should be kept since right now it is mixed in the > generic driver with a special byte program and word program which is > incompatible with other vendors' flashes. But there is some flash vendor specific code like quad enable bit, locking ops and finally about spi_flash_params table. > >>> >>> > >>> > For all of these platforms we can use the dediprog em100 which I >>> > typically set to use winbond as the manufacturer, regardless of which >>> > chip is actually on the board. >>> > >>> >>> I think that's because emulator can emulate flash from various vendors. >> >> Yes, and also for convenience. >> >>> >>> > For U-Boot on coreboot, why is SPI flash not supported? It certainly >>> > works with link. >>> >>> Yes, booting from coreboot does support SPI flash. However since we >>> decided to use QEMU as the default build target for coreboot, and QEMU >>> does not support SPI flash yet, these config options are removed. One >>> can certainly adjust these Kconfig options via 'make menuconfig', eg: >>> adding SD/MMC support which is not in coreboot's defconfig either. >> >> Well this breaks booting on link, since the SPI flash stops working. >> I'm really not keen on having to specially select the SPI flash when >> you want to use link. >> > > Do you mean booting U-Boot on link from coreboot? Without SPI flash it > should still boot. It looks to me your preference is to include all > the available drivers into coreboot's defconfig, yes? If so, we may > add some other drivers Kconfig in coreboot-x86_defconfig too, like > SD/MMC drivers, all the available ethernet drivers even they only > exist on some boards. thanks! -- Jagan | openedev. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot