[U-Boot] [PATCH v5 8/8] nand: mxc: Switch NAND SPL to generic SPL

["Benoît Thébaudeau" <benoit.thebaudeau@advansee.com>]

On Saturday, February 9, 2013 2:53:44 PM, Beno?t Th?baudeau wrote:
> On Saturday, February 9, 2013 12:47:25 AM, Beno?t Th?baudeau wrote:
> > On Friday, February 8, 2013 11:49:27 PM, Beno?t Th?baudeau wrote:
> > > Subject: [PATCH v5 8/8] nand: mxc: Switch NAND SPL to generic SPL
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Beno?t Th?baudeau <benoit.thebaudeau@advansee.com>
> > > ---
> > > Changes in v5:
> > >  - Remove spaces between function name and open parenthesis.
> > >  - Fix mx31pdk and tx25 Makefile-s and SPL linker scripts.
> > >  - Remove the useless definition of CONFIG_SPL_LDSCRIPT.
> > >  - Fix the call to nand_boot().
> > > 
> > > Changes in v4:
> > >  - New patch.
> > > 
> > > Changes in v3: None
> > > Changes in v2: None
> > 
> > This is now supposed to be working and compile-tested.
> > 
> > Custodians, please review and advise.
> > 
> > Board maintainers, please test.
> > 
> > Tell me if I should split away some stuff.
> > 
> > Should doc/README.arm-relocation be updated, and how since tx25 no longer
> > uses
> > NAND SPL, which is also deprecated?
> > 
> > Note that mx31pdk and tx25 had been broken by commit
> > e05e5de7fae5bec79617e113916dac6631251156. After this commit, for those
> > boards,
> > _main called board_init_f, which called relocate_code, which unexpectedly
> > (for
> > their users) returned to nowhere in ctr0.S instead of calling nand_boot.
> > Also,
> > crt0.S calls nand_boot if CONFIG_SPL_BUILD is not defined but
> > CONFIG_NAND_SPL
> > is, which is not normal for NAND SPL. Other NAND SPL boards may be broken
> > too,
> > but that's not too much of an issue since they are supposed to migrate to
> > generic SPL.
> 
> I am also wondering if board_init_f should not be moved out of mxc_nand_spl.c
> to
> either <board>/lowlevel_init.S or <board>/<board>.c. That would make
> mxc_nand_spl.c more generic if for some reason a board needs to do specific
> things. Any opinion?
> 
> For the start.S files, since it's not possible to know from CONFIG_SPL_BUILD
> and
> CONFIG_NAND_SPL if relocate_code is needed or not, I see the following
> choices:
> 1) Let it defined in all cases. It's quite small, so it won't hurt much.
> 2) Create a specific SPL #define (e.g. CONFIG_SPL_RELOCATE_CODE) to define it
>    for generic SPL only if needed.
> 3) Just create a specific linker section for it so that it's automatically
>    garbage-collected if unneeded.
> Any opinion?

I'm also considering to factorize relocate_code to crt0.S. There's not really a
good reason for it to be depending on each ARM processor. Any opinion?

Best regards,
Beno?t