On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 3:59 AM Marcel Ziswiler <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Teresa > > On Fri, 2021-08-27 at 09:21 +0000, Teresa Remmet wrote: > > Hello Marcel, > > > > Am Donnerstag, den 26.08.2021, 14:14 +0200 schrieb Marcel Ziswiler: > > > From: Marcel Ziswiler <[email protected]> > > > > > > With the move to using binman to generate SPL aka u-boot-spl-ddr.bin > > > and > > > U-Boot proper aka u-boot.itb every board now covers such > > > configuration > > > in its own U-Boot specific device tree include. Introduce a new > > > common > > > imx8mm-binman.dtsi which covers the common part of that > > > configuration. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Marcel Ziswiler <[email protected]> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > arch/arm/dts/imx8mm-binman.dtsi | 136 > > > ++++++++++++++++++ > > > arch/arm/dts/imx8mm-cl-iot-gate-u-boot.dtsi | 126 ++-------------- > > > arch/arm/dts/imx8mm-evk-u-boot.dtsi | 124 +--------------- > > > .../dts/imx8mm-kontron-n801x-s-u-boot.dtsi | 123 +--------------- > > > arch/arm/dts/imx8mm-venice-u-boot.dtsi | 120 +--------------- > > > arch/arm/dts/imx8mm-verdin-u-boot.dtsi | 123 +--------------- > > > 6 files changed, 156 insertions(+), 596 deletions(-) > > > create mode 100644 arch/arm/dts/imx8mm-binman.dtsi > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/imx8mm-binman.dtsi b/arch/arm/dts/imx8mm- > > > binman.dtsi > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 00000000000..2d98c1ef577 > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/arch/arm/dts/imx8mm-binman.dtsi > > > > is it really necessary to create a new binman include? > > No, I guess not. That's just what we loosely discussed. But this is also > exactly why I only posted it as an RFC > to get such feedback. > > > I have added the > > nodes for imx8mp directly to the imx8mp-u-boot.dtsi. I guess you did > > this because not all boards are converted yet. But I have tried this > > when I moved binman to the common include for imx8mp. As the phycore- > > imx8mp was also not converted at that point. It did not hurt having the > > binman nodes included. At least back then. > > Yes, maybe we can indeed just put it all into the same imx8mp-u-boot.dtsi. If > nobody objects to that idea I can > try it that way for a v2. > > > > I just not like to see that the file structure diverges. If there is a > > good reason I'd rather also move the binman nodes for imx8mp to a > > imx8mp-binman.dtsi. > > No, I guess either way will work. Let's hope we get some more feedback on > what the others prefer. Thanks! >
I'm not sure if I understand correctly but if the suggestion is to create a dtsi that is shared between the imx8mm and imx8mp I don't think that would be a good idea as there are differences in addresses and such. In fact, there's a difference in DDR training firmware between ddr3 and lpddr4 so trying to even combine them into an imx8mm-u-boot.dtsi doesn't even make sense to me. If anything maybe it should be a imx8mm-binman-lpddr4-u-boot.dtsi or something like that? Perhaps ifdef's could handle these differences allowing you to combine ddr types and SoC's? Tim
