On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 05:47:48PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > On 11/26/19 5:26 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 09:11:51AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > >> On 11/26/19 12:16 AM, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > >>> Dear maintainers, > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >>> we have been trying to move to the driver model for several years now. > >>> Starting in 2018 we have added warnings to the Makefile that boards not > >>> supporting the driver model will be eliminated. Still 24 % of the > >>> configuration files have not been converted and do not even use > >>> CONFIG_DM=y. > >>> > >>> If we want to get rid of legacy drivers, at some point we have to remove > >>> the 347 configuration files in the list below not using the driver model. > >>> > >>> I suggest to do this directly after the release of v2020.01 scheduled > >>> January 6th. > >>> > >>> This should not stop the maintainers from reinserting the boards after > >>> conversion to the driver model. > >> > >> Some boards just cannot accommodate this DM stuff. For those boards, > >> it's just bloat without any useful added value. Hence, these boards > >> would be removed because they cannot accommodate arbitrary bloat. This > >> makes U-Boot not-so-universal bootloader anymore, but rather a bloated one. > >> > >> I don't think we can force boards out or impose DM on everyone unless we > >> can solve this bloat issue first. > > > > As someone who was involved in creating this DM stuff, do you have some > > ideas on addressing things? Given that you're responsible for a number > > of these platforms and can test out some ideas on them, what are you > > suggesting? > > How about directly calling driver functions for drivers which have > single instance only ? Then we could optimize out all the DM overhead > for that.
And when are you hoping to post an RFC / example? -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
