From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Glass Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 10:47:43 -0600 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] board_r: re-order the board_early_init_r() In-Reply-To: <55ddc9bf-b531-5058-ffbd-d0c6e1e031cb@gmail.com> References: <20190724100119.7626-1-kever.yang@rock-chips.com> <362843a4-e81a-c895-c494-c188903a72d1@gmail.com> <86a84127-7247-711e-5cc6-b716824d204c@rock-chips.com> <55ddc9bf-b531-5058-ffbd-d0c6e1e031cb@gmail.com> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi Matthias, On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 at 10:40, Matthias Brugger wrote: > > > > On 31/07/2019 10:58, Kever Yang wrote: > > > > On 2019/7/31 下午3:23, Matthias Brugger wrote: > >> > >> On 24/07/2019 14:22, Kever Yang wrote: > >>> On 2019/7/24 下午6:22, Simon Goldschmidt wrote: > >>>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 12:01 PM Kever Yang wrote: > >>>>> The board_early_init_r() suppose to be called before board_init(), > >>>>> then the board callback functions in board_r will be: > >>>>> - board_early_init_r() > >>>>> - board_init() > >>>>> - board_late_init() > >>>> Searching through the code, elixir.bootlin.com gives me 52 definitions > >>>> of board_early_init_r(). Does this patch break any of those boards > >>>> when it changes the order of those calls? > >>> I do have check some of the implement and most of them should be OK, but to be > >>> honest, > >>> > >>> I'm don't have any of those boards, and not sure if this break any of them, and > >>> I'm not sure > >>> > >>> if people using this interface have notice it's after the board_init(). > >>> > >>> When I try to use this board_early_init_r(), I thought this is before > >>> board_init(), but it actually > >>> > >>> after the board_init(), that make people confusing. > >>> > >>> I think the _early_ one should be at the first, isn't it? > >> I agree. Maybe we should rename it to board_post_init? > > Sorry , do you mean add/rename a board_post_init() for what's done by > > board_early_init_r() now and then add/move ad board api before board_init()? > > There is a board_late_init(), which is after env init, a new board_post_init() > > seems > > not a good idea. > > > > My idea was to rename board_early_init_r to board_post_init as it is done after > board_init but before board_late_init. It's not perfect but at least less > confusing then the naming right now. No I really think we should merge them. If we really cannot, then let's rename board_early_init_r() to board_init_powerpc() for now. Regards, Simon > > Regards, > Matthias > > > > > Here is the Kconfig help for BOARD_EARLY_INIT_R, which also means we it should > > be called before board_init(). > > > > config BOARD_EARLY_INIT_R > > bool "Call board-specific init after relocation" > > help > > Some boards need to perform initialisation as directly after > > relocation. With this option, U-Boot calls board_early_init_r() > > in the post-relocation init sequence. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > - Kever > > > >> > >> Regards, > >> Matthias > >> > > > >