[u-boot][PATCH 1/3] scripts: Makefile.spl: Enable memory drivers to be built for SPL

[Simon Glass]

Hi Roger,

On Fri, 30 Sept 2022 at 06:47, Roger Quadros <rogerq at kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Simon,
>
> On 29/09/2022 21:06, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Roger,
> >
> > On Thu, 29 Sept 2022 at 01:03, Roger Quadros <rogerq at kernel.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Simon,
> >>
> >> On 28/09/2022 19:27, Simon Glass wrote:
> >>> Hi Roger,
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, 28 Sept 2022 at 06:12, Roger Quadros <rogerq at kernel.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> We will need ti-gpmc driver for SPL. Allow memory drivers
> >>>> do be built for SPL.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Roger Quadros <rogerq at kernel.org>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>  scripts/Makefile.spl | 1 +
> >>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >>>
> >>> Please can you use the existing drivers/ram directory?
> >>
> >> The ti-gpmc driver is not actually a RAM only controller. Although it can support SRAM.
> >> It is a more general purpose controller that can support different peripherals.
> >> It is similar to the drivers already existing in the divers/memory directory.
> >>
> >> I was just trying to keep the file layout similar to that in the Linux kernel.
> >>
> >> Do you still see a problem with it?
> >
> > Well in this case perhaps the RAM device would be a child of this one?
>
> That's right.
> >
> > But there is no uclass for your new device. One of the drivers in that
> > dir uses UCLASS_NOP and your one seems to use UCLASS_SIMPLE_BUS
> >
> > So let's add a uclass for it and describe exactly what it is for.
>
> Why isn't UCLASS_SIMPLE_BUS sufficient?
> By itself, the GPMC driver doesn't offer any usable functionality.
> It just configures the bus interface and then populates the children.

That's OK, but in that case it should go in drivers/bus and perhaps
drivers/memory should go away?

Regards,
Simon