[U-Boot] [PATCH 66/93] arm: Remove ot1200 board

[Simon Goldschmidt <simon.k.r.goldschmidt@gmail.com>]

[I've shortened the CC list a bit since this might be somewhat off-topic 
and both gmail warned be about too many CCs]

On 22.11.2018 18:01, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 03:44:28PM +0100, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
>> Am Do., 22. Nov. 2018, 14:44 hat Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> geschrieben:
>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 02:24:49PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>> On 11/22/2018 01:52 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 10:25:14AM +0100, Christian Gmeiner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am Mo., 19. Nov. 2018 um 16:56 Uhr schrieb Simon Glass <
>>> sjg at chromium.org>:
>>>>>>> This board has not been converted to CONFIG_DM_BLK by the deadline.
>>>>>>> Remove it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> As the board is still mainted I will NAK it for the moment. Are there
>>>>>> any hints want needs to be done
>>>>>> to port thie board over to new DM stuff?
>>>>> Yes, as a start you need to switch over to using CONFIG_OF_CONTROL and
>>>>> selecting/providing a dtb file.  I see ot1200 is using DWC_AHSATA which
>>>>> needs more work, but this is the board-level work that needs doing.
>>>> Wasn't there a possibility to use platform data in board file instead of
>>>> DT ? Or is DT mandatory now , including the libfdt overhead ?
>>> In short, DT for U-Boot and platform data for SPL is what's recommended,
>>> yes.
>>>
>> This is a little confusing for me. Socfpga gen5 SPL doesn't do that. And it
>> seems a little strange or outdated overall.
>>
>> Would there be some kind of reference architecture or mach to look at
>> what's the suggested/up-to-date way to implement SPL? Also regarding code
>> flow?
> So, SPL is where things get, ahem, fuzzy.  While I don't want to
> encourage boundless growth in U-Boot proper, we aren't exactly size
> constrained (but rather, functional/logical constrained).  But in SPL,
> yes, we have many platforms with 32/64/128 kilobyte hard limits (and
> some smaller) and we can't always shove in a "TPL" before SPL either.
> So in SPL we do make use of platform data instead.  While not the
> smallest size constraint, am335x_hs_evm is a reasonable thing to look at
> in this case.

OK. My main concern here is not size regarding DTB or platform data but
really code flow. Like what should be done in which function and when.
There seem to be some implications of *when* some things are done or in
which order. And the socfpga gen5 SPL seems like a "historically grown"
one to me. I just wanted to see if there's any example of a "well
formed" SPL. I'll have a look at that am335x_hs_evm you mentioned, thanks.

Simon