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 <[email protected]>
Cc: Mathieu Othacehe <[email protected]>, Christoph Stoidner
<[email protected]>, Stefano Babic <[email protected]>, Fabio
Estevam <[email protected]>, "NXP i.MX U-Boot Team" <uboot-
[email protected]>, Tom Rini <[email protected]>, Yannic Moog
<[email protected]>, Primoz Fiser <[email protected]>, Andrej
Picej <[email protected]>, Wadim Egorov <[email protected]>
---
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 <[email protected]>
+ * Copyright (C) 2024 PHYTEC Messtechnik GmbH
*
* Product homepage:
- * phyBOARD-Segin carrier board is reused for the i.MX93 design.
- * https://www.phytec.eu/en/produkte/single-board-
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
