On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 3:57 PM Bernhard Messerklinger bernhard.messerklinger@br-automation.com wrote:
Hi Simon,
With this patch I moved the fsp-m configuration to the device-tree based on the baytrail boards. I have tried to build it so that only entries that differ from the default configuration need to be added. As a minimum the ddr configuration must be present. If you like this way of configuration, I am also willing to do the same for the fsp-s. Can you please provide me some feedback?
Changes in v2: Added commit notes
arch/x86/cpu/apollolake/fsp_m.c | 337
+++++++++++-------
arch/x86/dts/chromebook_coral.dts | 35 ++ .../asm/arch-apollolake/fsp/fsp_m_upd.h | 162 +++++++++ 3 files changed, 414 insertions(+), 120 deletions(-)
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org Tested on chromebook_coral: Tested-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
Do you think we should add a binding file for this though?
Yes, I will create v3 with a binding file in doc/device-tree-bindings/fsp/fsp2/apollolake/fsp-m.txt.
Sorry after some more detailed research I don't know if my first understanding of binding file was right.
With binding file do you mean a header file for defines in /include/dt-bindings or a documentation in doc/device-tree-bindings?
doc/device-tree-bindings/
Is that ok for you?
Do you also agree to change the fsp-s configuration in the same way?
Regards, Bin