Hi Marcel, > Il giorno 24 ott 2022, alle ore 00:01, Marcel Ziswiler > <marcel.ziswi...@toradex.com> ha scritto: > > Hi Giulio > >> On Sun, 2022-10-23 at 01:32 +0200, Giulio Benetti wrote: >> Hi Marcel, >> >> thanks for contributing, > > You are very welcome. > >> Il 22/10/2022 23:42, Marcel Ziswiler ha scritto: >>> From: Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswi...@toradex.com> >>> >>> Fix lpuart issue in common U-Boot device tree. >> >> There's no need to repeat in commit log the subject. > > Well, most maintainers do want an actual commit message and won't accept it > being empty. For trivial commits > like this one it is quite common to therefore just repeat the subject.
You’re right, this is project dependent, here in uboot they want it like that. > >>> Signed-off-by: Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswi...@toradex.com> >>> --- >>> >>> (no changes since v1) >>> >>> arch/arm/dts/imxrt1020-evk-u-boot.dtsi | 7 ++++--- >>> arch/arm/dts/imxrt1020-evk.dts | 1 - >>> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/imxrt1020-evk-u-boot.dtsi >>> b/arch/arm/dts/imxrt1020-evk-u-boot.dtsi >>> index 9e1b074d2e..7cab486f5f 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/dts/imxrt1020-evk-u-boot.dtsi >>> +++ b/arch/arm/dts/imxrt1020-evk-u-boot.dtsi >>> @@ -67,9 +67,6 @@ >>> >>> imxrt1020-evk { >>> u-boot,dm-spl; >>> - pinctrl_lpuart1: lpuart1grp { >>> - u-boot,dm-spl; >>> - }; >>> >>> pinctrl_semc: semcgrp { >>> u-boot,dm-spl; >>> @@ -81,6 +78,10 @@ >>> }; >>> }; >>> >>> +&pinctrl_lpuart1 { >>> + u-boot,dm-spl; >>> +}; >>> + >> >> I don't understand the goal of this change, can you elaborate? > > Well, the goal is to use them Linux kernel device trees and have any required > changes in such -u-boot.dtsi > device tree include files. As such we may just reference resp. node by its > handle and subsequently add that U- > Boot specific property. Ah yes and > >> As I remember pinctrl_lpuart1 already works correctly. The same goes >> for: >> pinctrl_semc >> pinctrl_usdhc0 >> >> So you're not fixing something. > > Well, I am basically fixing it for when them device trees get synchronised > from the Linux kernel. One may > basically consider out-of-synch device trees being an issue in need of fixing. Yes. Can you please add this explanation in commit log? It’s easier to keep track and to review too. > >>> &usdhc1 { >>> u-boot,dm-spl; >>> }; >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/imxrt1020-evk.dts b/arch/arm/dts/imxrt1020-evk.dts >>> index 22ae5ed735..d4d1de4ea8 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/dts/imxrt1020-evk.dts >>> +++ b/arch/arm/dts/imxrt1020-evk.dts >>> @@ -6,7 +6,6 @@ >>> >>> /dts-v1/; >>> #include "imxrt1020.dtsi" >>> -#include "imxrt1020-evk-u-boot.dtsi" >> >> This ^^^ is needed, please revert it. > > No, you do not understand. We just synchronise them device trees from the > Linux kernel. Nothing should ever be > changed here. Any and all U-Boot specific changes need to go into the > -u-boot.dtsi device tree include files > which BTW get included automatically by the U-Boot build system. This has been changed during time. Can you please add this note too in commit log? > >>> #include "imxrt1020-pinfunc.h" >>> >>> / { >> >> Have you also tested the change on a board? > > As outlined in the cover letter I did not test each and every board as I do > not have them all available. If you > do have some of those boards available I would appreciate you giving it a try. Yes I do have 1020 so I can give a try of V4. Best regards Giulio > > Thanks! > >> Best regards >> -- >> Giulio Benetti >> CEO/CTO@Benetti Engineering sas > > Cheers > > Marcel