On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 05:43:54PM +0800, yang tylor wrote: > On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 5:22 PM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 03:56:25PM +0800, yang tylor wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 7:09 PM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 05:31:29PM +0800, yang tylor wrote: > > > > > > > The behavior of "himax,boot_time_fw_upgrade" seems not stable and > > > > > should be removed. "himax,fw_in_flash", I use the kernel config for > > > > > user to select. > > > > > > > > That seems like a bad idea, we want to be able to build one kernel that > > > > works for all hardware at the same time. > > > > > > > I see, so I should take that back? > > > I'll explain more about it. > > > > Are there particular ICs where the firmware would always be in flash and > > others where it would never be? Or is this a choice made by the board or > > system designer? > > > Most cases it's about the system designer's decision. But some ICs may be forced > to use flash because of its architecture(multiple IC inside, need to > load firmware to > multiple IC's sram by master IC). But if there is no limitation on > this part, most system > designers will prefer flashless. Forgive me if I am not understanding correctly, there are some ICs that will need to load the firmware from flash and there are some where it will be a decision made by the designer of the board. Is the flash part of the IC or is it an external flash chip? Cheers, Conor.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
