On 10/06/2022 00:38, Heiko Thiery wrote:
Hi Tim, Hi Simon,
[SNIP]
Heiko,
You can add multi-dtb support to this so that it's usable by the other imx8mn boards with the following:
[...]
I don't mind sending this as a follow-up to your patch here.
Since this patch moves the parts from the 2 imx8mn-evk boards to one "common" file it would be better to do more changes on that in a separate patch.
It looks like there are only the following boards in mainline that would benefit from using this shared include: imx8mn-beacon-kit-u-boot.dtsi imx8mn-var-som-symphony-u-boot.dtsi imx8mn-venice-u-boot.dtsi
There's also 'imx8mn-bsh-smm-s2-u-boot-common.dtsi'. Slightly different because only half of the blobs are there with IMX8M_DDR3L.
Have you compared the binman portions of imx8m{m,n,p}-u-boot.dtsi?
No not yet.
I looked a bit and they look very much alike. I suspect it's possible to eventually unify everything into a shared 'imx8m-u-boot.dtsi', but I didn't actually try.
There are a lot of differences due to different property ordering and label/node naming conventions. I would like to see these normalized but i'm not clear which is the best example to normalize to. Specifically I don't know:
- what is the convention for property ordering in dt... is it simply
alphabetical order?
AFAIK property order doesn't matter for binman. Node order is very significant though. For names, I think we should:
- Prefer hyphens to underscores - Prefer lowercase to uppercase - Prefer meaningful names to things like 'blob-ext@1' - Avoid first char being a number (because labels can't have that)
- have we settled on a convention for the blob naming, if so what is
the best example?
I had suggested 'ddr-1d-imem-fw' etc. on a series from Peng, see latest version of it [1].
[1] arm: dts: imx8m: update binman ddr firmware node name https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20220603071715.15212-4-peng.fan@oss.nxp.com/
I am not aware that there is a conventional here. But maybe simon can give some hints here.