On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 3:59 AM Marcel Ziswiler marcel.ziswiler@toradex.com wrote:
Hi Teresa
On Fri, 2021-08-27 at 09:21 +0000, Teresa Remmet wrote:
Hello Marcel,
Am Donnerstag, den 26.08.2021, 14:14 +0200 schrieb Marcel Ziswiler:
From: Marcel Ziswiler marcel.ziswiler@toradex.com
With the move to using binman to generate SPL aka u-boot-spl-ddr.bin and U-Boot proper aka u-boot.itb every board now covers such configuration in its own U-Boot specific device tree include. Introduce a new common imx8mm-binman.dtsi which covers the common part of that configuration.
Signed-off-by: Marcel Ziswiler marcel.ziswiler@toradex.com
arch/arm/dts/imx8mm-binman.dtsi | 136 ++++++++++++++++++ arch/arm/dts/imx8mm-cl-iot-gate-u-boot.dtsi | 126 ++-------------- arch/arm/dts/imx8mm-evk-u-boot.dtsi | 124 +--------------- .../dts/imx8mm-kontron-n801x-s-u-boot.dtsi | 123 +--------------- arch/arm/dts/imx8mm-venice-u-boot.dtsi | 120 +--------------- arch/arm/dts/imx8mm-verdin-u-boot.dtsi | 123 +--------------- 6 files changed, 156 insertions(+), 596 deletions(-) create mode 100644 arch/arm/dts/imx8mm-binman.dtsi
diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/imx8mm-binman.dtsi b/arch/arm/dts/imx8mm- binman.dtsi new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..2d98c1ef577 --- /dev/null +++ b/arch/arm/dts/imx8mm-binman.dtsi
is it really necessary to create a new binman include?
No, I guess not. That's just what we loosely discussed. But this is also exactly why I only posted it as an RFC to get such feedback.
I have added the nodes for imx8mp directly to the imx8mp-u-boot.dtsi. I guess you did this because not all boards are converted yet. But I have tried this when I moved binman to the common include for imx8mp. As the phycore- imx8mp was also not converted at that point. It did not hurt having the binman nodes included. At least back then.
Yes, maybe we can indeed just put it all into the same imx8mp-u-boot.dtsi. If nobody objects to that idea I can try it that way for a v2.
I just not like to see that the file structure diverges. If there is a good reason I'd rather also move the binman nodes for imx8mp to a imx8mp-binman.dtsi.
No, I guess either way will work. Let's hope we get some more feedback on what the others prefer. Thanks!
I'm not sure if I understand correctly but if the suggestion is to create a dtsi that is shared between the imx8mm and imx8mp I don't think that would be a good idea as there are differences in addresses and such. In fact, there's a difference in DDR training firmware between ddr3 and lpddr4 so trying to even combine them into an imx8mm-u-boot.dtsi doesn't even make sense to me. If anything maybe it should be a imx8mm-binman-lpddr4-u-boot.dtsi or something like that? Perhaps ifdef's could handle these differences allowing you to combine ddr types and SoC's?
Tim