[PATCH] misc: imx: remove DM dependency for ocotp driver in SPL
The ocotp driver is available for regular and SPL builds using the (SPL_)MXC_OCOTP configuration. Also, the ocotp driver does not support the driver model (DM) configuration. But, for SPL builds, the SPL_MXC_OCOTP configuration depends on SPL_MISC which implies on SPL_DM. This commit replaces the dependency on SPL_MISC with SPL_DRIVERS_MISC. So the only requirement is to have enabled miscellaneous drivers for the SPL. Signed-off-by: Jean-Marie Lemetayer --- drivers/misc/Kconfig | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/misc/Kconfig b/drivers/misc/Kconfig index b07261d3db..1696ed62c0 100644 --- a/drivers/misc/Kconfig +++ b/drivers/misc/Kconfig @@ -352,7 +352,7 @@ config NPCM_HOST config SPL_MXC_OCOTP bool "Enable MXC OCOTP driver in SPL" - depends on SPL_MISC && (ARCH_IMX8M || ARCH_MX6 || ARCH_MX7 || ARCH_MX7ULP || ARCH_VF610) + depends on SPL_DRIVERS_MISC && (ARCH_IMX8M || ARCH_MX6 || ARCH_MX7 || ARCH_MX7ULP || ARCH_VF610) default y help If you say Y here, you will get support for the One Time -- 2.34.1
Dependency issue on SPL_MXC_OCOTP
TLDR: In the configuration SPL_MXC_OCOTP, the dependency on SPL_MISC should be replaced by SPL_DRIVERS_MISC. Hi folks, I was creating a new imx6 board with an SPL and without enabling the "driver model for SPL" to keep a pretty simple SPL. Then I wanted to enable the secure boot, and so the IMX_HAB option, which needs at compile time the "fuse_read" function. This function is provided by the "mxc_ocotp" driver (in the misc section). This driver is totally not "driver model" oriented. It can be enabled for regular builds and SPL builds using the (SPL_)MXC_OCOTP option. For the regular build, MXC_OCOTP does not have any dependency (except for the arch dependency), so no DM dependency here. But for the SPL build, the SPL_MXC_OCOTP needs the SPL_MISC option which is directly linked to the SPL_DM option. I think this is just a typo and this should be only dependent on the "support of misc drivers in the SPL" so the SPL_DRIVERS_MISC option. Am I right ? If someone confirms this point, I will propose a patch. Best regards, Jean-Marie
