On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 7:21 AM Kever Yang <kever.yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Jagan, > > > On 06/11/2019 11:03 PM, Jagan Teki wrote: > > Note: Puma rk3399 has SPL size overflow, better to enable TPL > for this board. > > We need to keep Puma on a SPL-only configuration for the time being. > Please make sure that the LPDDR4 code is an optional feature that does not > increase the DRAM-driver size for boards that don’t need/want it. > > We have few boards do have TPL-runnable, would be any technical issue > to switch puma to TPL? because we have lpddr4 code part of existing > driver itself and it require extra ifdef to consider which indeed look > awful from code point-of-view. > > Dose the driver size increase too much for Puma because of the lpddr4 > init logic or because of the two extra timing data? The two timing data > are pretty big, maybe we do not need them if the board is not lpddr4? Yes, along with the code that support set rate for lpddr4. Still thinking how we can manage to mark the lpddr4 changes independent, marking ifdef in all the code look awful. let me know if you have any inputs? _______________________________________________ Linux-rockchip mailing list Linux-rockchip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
