David, > On 13.02.2019, at 11:28, David Wu <david...@rock-chips.com> wrote: > > Hi Philipp, > > 在 2019/2/12 下午9:53, Philipp Tomsich 写道: >>> On 12.02.2019, at 13:38, David Wu <david...@rock-chips.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Philipp, >>> >>> 在 2019/2/10 上午2:24, Philipp Tomsich 写道: >>>> That said, I have been fighting issues from this patchset when trying to >>>> read >>>> from devices on the i2c0 bus on a RK3399—which had me add a “simple” >>>> pinctrl device again, as pulling all the dependencies into the SPL is a >>>> pain. >>> >>> I think you can also add the simple ops if necessary. Full pinctrl >>> should only be used at the U-boot stage, or the SPL stage where the TPL is >>> available. >> I started on this and will submit it with the follow-on changes that depend >> on this, as >> I don’t want to pull in the ~10k of extra size. > > 10k is a bit exaggerated, I think I can split some common functions > into each Soc chip file, can reduce some size.
The 10k comes from a direct comparison on our RK3399-Q7, after pulling in all the required DTS nodes and properties vs. a minimal simple pinctrl for I2C only (which is ~ 100 bytes of code). > For the simple ops, do you feel like get prop from "pinctrl-0", and then > the pinctrl process is similar to what it is now. > >> There’s a number of failure modes in the SPL/TPL path from missing DTB nodes >> (as >> one would need to add pre-reloc tags to all pinctrl and dependent nodes). >>> For most boards about 3288, there is no need to enable pinctrl at SPL >>> stage, such as Tinker board. >>> >>> >>>> Unfortunately, in this merge I had to make a judgement call between >>>> insisting >>>> on code-quality and getting the full pinctrl-driver merged. With this >>>> release >>>> cycle being longer and having 5 RCs, I figured we’ll have time to iron out >>>> any >>>> wrinkles... >>> >>> > > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
