On Sat, Feb 13, 2021, at 2:13 AM, Michael Walle wrote: > Hi, > > I am looking into how to bring openwrt support for my board > (Kontron sl28) upstream. The board has upstream support in > both vanilla linux (since 5.8) and vanilla u-boot. Someone > in IRC told me there will be a new release based on 5.10 after > the 21.02 branch is created. So that would be a nice fit. > > I'd have thought the board will fit it linux/layerscape but that > is the vanilla kernel with all the NXP lsdk patches on top of it, > which my board doesn't need and frankly speaking I don't want. The > same is true for the uboot-layerscape package. Thats the LSDK > version.
Hi Michael, I/we (Traverse) also have layerscape boards that run OpenWrt. When the layerscape target was first introduced (~2017), most of the drivers for these SoCs were not in mainline linux yet. Since then, the situation has changed, the newer SoCs (e.g DPAA2/LS1088/LS2088) are very much complete (and in some ways, better) in >=5.10 and the others are not far behind. I understand there are some edge cases, such as the DPAA1 (LS1043/LS1046) Ethernet drivers in mainline were a 'clean' rewrite of NXP/Freescale's long standing 'Netcomm' driver and have different performance and features to mainline. I would put forward the following options: 1. For future OpenWrt releases with kernel >=5.10, stop using LSDK patches, or only pick the required patchset for SoCs not in upstream (e.g any new Layerscape SoCs that are introduced) I suspect the size of the NXP LSDK patchset will decrease signifcantly when rebased onto >=5.10 so this problem may solve itself. and/or 2. Introduce a generic 'armv8' target for systems that have 'block storage' (SATA/MMC/NVMe), targetting U-Boot distroboot and ARM EBBR(EFI), which would look a lot like the existing x86 target. I did have a go myself at introducing an 'armserver' target for EFI boot a while ago, this was before x86-64 EFI support was introduced. There were suggestions that it should go into 'armvirt', though the existing armvirt/32 target may not share the same goals. Boards that boot from flash (ubifs) or have special requirements (such as bundling the RCW/ATF) could continue using the individual targets. Regards, Matt > > Thus, does anyone have an idea where I should put my board. It > really looks like the "layerscape" is tailored to the NXP eval > boards. > > It should really have been a layerscape-lsdk in the first place. > > Any thoughts? > > In theory it should be possible to have a generic armv8 board. > Which only differs in the device trees. But that would mean > the kernel image will bloat over time. I don't know if that is > a major issue, given that most aarch64 boards should have > enough storage and memory. > > -michael > > _______________________________________________ > openwrt-devel mailing list > openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel > _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel