Am 08.11.24 um 19:02 schrieb Christoph Stoidner:
Hi Wadim,
On Di, 2024-11-05 at 08:42 +0100, Wadim Egorov wrote:
Hi Christoph,
Am 04.11.24 um 12:25 schrieb Christoph Stoidner:
The phyCORE-i.MX 93 is available in various variants (e.g. different ram sizes, eMMC HS400 yes/no). Add a new SOM-scoped defconfig that makes use of the hardware introspection of the phycore-imx93 board-code, to detect the SOM module variant, and to configure the hardware accordingly. The resulting SPL and u-boot binary shall able to boot each phyCORE- i.MX93 module variant on each carrier board.
I think it would be better to simply rename the current imx93-phyboard-segin_defconfig to phycore_imx93_defconfig. This is less confusing and follows the idea of our other SoMs.
I see. My original reason to keep the existing imx93-phyboard-segin_defconfig was to avoid any breaking change. And I thought limiting the existing one to the SOM would be a breaking change. But a further look to the imx93-phyboard-segin_defconfig confirms what you said. It is already scoped to the SOM, only the name "phyboard" is confusing.
So, I will rename imx93-phyboard-segin_defconfig and just add the SOM detection. I will send a v2 for that.
Just one more note: Other than you suggested above I will use the final name "imx93-phycore_defconfig" instead of "phycore_imx93_defconfig". Although this does not match the Phytec names, it does fit the existing naming scheme in the upstream u-boot. I talked a while ago with Teresa about that. The existing phytec names have historically grown, and later the naming scheme with imx* prefix has established in upstream. Teresa and me agreed that we should use the upstream way.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Stoidner c.stoidner@phytec.de Cc: Mathieu Othacehe m.othacehe@gmail.com, Christoph Stoidner c.stoidner@phytec.de, Stefano Babic sbabic@denx.de, Fabio Estevam festevam@gmail.com, "NXP i.MX U-Boot Team" <uboot- imx@nxp.com>, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com, Yannic Moog y.moog@phytec.de, Primoz Fiser primoz.fiser@norik.com, Andrej Picej andrej.picej@norik.com, Wadim Egorov w.egorov@phytec.de
arch/arm/dts/imx93-phyboard-segin-u-boot.dtsi | 14 +- board/phytec/phycore_imx93/MAINTAINERS | 1 + configs/imx93-phycore_defconfig | 156 ++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 169 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) create mode 100644 configs/imx93-phycore_defconfig
diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/imx93-phyboard-segin-u-boot.dtsi b/arch/arm/dts/imx93-phyboard-segin-u-boot.dtsi index 25c778bb07..e84476c38a 100644 --- a/arch/arm/dts/imx93-phyboard-segin-u-boot.dtsi +++ b/arch/arm/dts/imx93-phyboard-segin-u-boot.dtsi @@ -2,15 +2,25 @@ /* * Copyright (C) 2023 PHYTEC Messtechnik GmbH * Christoph Stoidner c.stoidner@phytec.de
- Copyright (C) 2024 PHYTEC Messtechnik GmbH
* * Product homepage:
- phyBOARD-Segin carrier board is reused for the i.MX93 design.
computer/phyboard-segin-imx6ul/ + https://www.phytec.de/produkte/system-on-modules/phycore-imx- 91-93/ */
#include "imx93-u-boot.dtsi"
/ {
+ /* + * If the u-boot build uses the device tree of a phyCORE- i.MX93 carrier + * board (i.E. imx93-phyboard-segin.dts), then this u- boot.dtsi + * deactivates all carrier board-specific peripherals. This means that + * the resulting SPL and u-boot binary can boot the phyCORE-i.MX 93 module + * on each carrier board. + */
This comment does not seem to reflect what imx93-phyboard-segin-u-boot.dtsi is actually doing.
I dont know what you mean. Do you see any carrier board peripherals that keep activated? Or anything else? What missmatch do you mean?
You are not deactivating anything in this u-boot.dtsi file so the comment does not make a lot of sense to me.
Regards, Wadim