From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 15:46:44 +0100
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 11/12] rockchip: add px30 architecture core
In-Reply-To: <6489606b-51c5-72d4-b7e9-023b555a4b88@rock-chips.com>
References: <20191024232803.10338-1-heiko@sntech.de> <1792202.jxQ7vnOg3D@diego>
 <6489606b-51c5-72d4-b7e9-023b555a4b88@rock-chips.com>
Message-ID: <1952482.mV1BMFkout@phil>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Hi Kever,

Am Sonntag, 10. November 2019, 15:13:52 CET schrieb Kever Yang:
> On 2019/10/25 下午3:47, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> > Am Freitag, 25. Oktober 2019, 04:49:54 CEST schrieb Kever Yang:
> >> On 2019/10/25 上午7:28, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> >>> From: Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com>
> >>>
> >>> Add core architecture code to support the px30 soc.
> >>> This includes a separate tpl board file due to very limited
> >>> sram size as well as a non-dm sdram driver, as this also has
> >>> to fit into the tiny sram.
> >>
> >> Could you leave the sram code and make it possible to use the common
> >> sdram code
> >>
> >> I have send out:
> >>
> >> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/1183700/
> >>
> >> The sram driver should goes to driver/ram folder instead of arch/arm folder.
> > That won't work. For the px30, the ddr-init portion will need to stay in
> > arch-rockchip/px30 I'm afraid.
> >
> > To compile things in drivers/ram you need to have TPL_RAM enabled
> > which in turn depends on TPL_DM which in turn makes the tpl size
> > to big.
> 
> 
> Can we just update the TPL_RAM not depends on DM, and leave the code in 
> the driver/ram folder,
> 
> and let the code itself to decide if use DM or not? We do use 
> CONFIG_TPL_BUILD and CONFIG_SPL_BUILD
> 
> for dram driver code to make choice.
> 
> The core implement of PX30 DRAM driver is shared with other SoCs, it 
> should be at the same place with
> other SoCs.

CONFIG_RAM (the core symbol) already depends on CONFIG_DM, so changing
this will cause a lot of churn for us but also other drivers living there.
And thus probably a long and detailed discussion.

And while this will be worthwhile in the long run (also for the rk3036
and future socs), can we maybe do that in 2 steps?

Aka doing your ddr-series and px30-support and then in a second step adapt
drivers/ram as needed and move rk3036 + px30 over there?
That way we don't get stalled until everybody is happy with a solution.


Thanks
Heiko