Sean, Dinesh, Anurag, On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 2:35 AM Maniyam, Dinesh <[email protected]> wrote:
> I can try, but I can't promise I'll be done with it in any particular > timeframe. > > But TBH I don't think a spi_nand.c-style loader is the right way to do things > when UBI exists. > Maybe Dinesh can comment, but I don't really see the point except if e.g. you > are really short > on space in SPL, but not so much that you can't fit in MTD. > > --Sean > > Based on our current design, we rely on the existing NAND framework with only > a minimal set > of additional helper functions provided by the controller, which keeps the > SPL implementation simple and NAND-specific. > > The SPI-NAND SPL loader expects a broader set of common SPL helpers which > lead to compilation failures. > Adapting to that model would require significant refactoring and extensive > testing, > so for now we plan to continue using and extending the existing > nand_spl_loaders.c, > which aligns better with the current SPL design and our constraints. Should we focus on getting separate SPI NAND SPL and NAND SPL loaders for now, and then later work on a generic MTD implementation?
