Hi Tim On Fri, 2021-08-27 at 08:12 -0700, Tim Harvey wrote:
> ... > > > > +++ 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? No, I don't think it is our intention to combine anything from imx8mm and imx8mp at this point. As far as I understood, rather than introducing a new imx8mm-binman.dtsi the suggestion is to put that into the existing imx8mm-u-boot.dtsi as well similar to how Teresa did that for phycore-imx8mp and the imx8mp-u-boot.dtsi. > Perhaps ifdef's could handle these differences allowing you to combine > ddr types and SoC's? No, I don't really think that would improve anything over just having separate imx8mm-u-boot.dtsi and imx8mp-u- boot.dtsi files. On the other hand, I also don't see that anything would stop us from still going down that route of further combining imx8mm and imx8mp stuff in the future should we really want to. > Tim Cheers Marcel
