Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] ARM: imx: imx8mn-evk: use one common u-boot.dtsi for the evk boards

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: diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/imx8mn-u-boot.dtsi b/arch/arm/dts/imx8mn-u-boot.dtsi index 7b591085a0be..af6697b1efbc 100644 --- a/arch/arm/dts/imx8mn-u-boot.dtsi +++ b/arch/arm/dts/imx8mn-u-boot.dtsi @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@

            fit {
                    description = "Configuration to load ATF before U-Boot";

•                   fit,fdt-list = "of-list";
                    #address-cells = <1>;
                    fit,external-offset = <CONFIG_FIT_EXTERNAL_OFFSET>;
  
  

@@ -67,7 +68,7 @@ }; };

•                           fdt {
  

•                           @fdt-SEQ {
                                    description = "NAME";
                                    type = "flat_dt";
                                    compression = "none";
  

@@ -79,13 +80,13 @@ };

                    configurations {

•                           default = "conf";
  

•                           default = "@config-DEFAULT-SEQ";
  
  

•                           conf {
  

•                           binman_configuration: @config-SEQ {
                                    description = "NAME";
                                    firmware = "uboot";
                                    loadables = "atf";
  

•                                   fdt = "fdt";
  

•                                   fdt = "fdt-SEQ";
                            };
                    };
            };
  
  

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

Have you compared the binman portions of imx8m{m,n,p}-u-boot.dtsi?

No not yet.

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:

1. what is the convention for property ordering in dt... is it simply

alphabetical order? 2. have we settled on a convention for the blob naming, if so what is the best example?

I am not aware that there is a conventional here. But maybe simon can give some hints here.