Hi Fabio, On Wed, Aug 26, 2026 at 11:33:56AM -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote: > Hi Stefan, > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2026 at 4:45 AM Stefan Eichenberger <[email protected]> wrote: > > > We discussed this internally and decided to implement it in the same way > > as NXP does in board/nxp/imx95_frdm/imx95_frdm.c, but I'm not sure why > > it was necessary to put it in the board file. Perhaps because it can > > only be done in board_fix_fdt, which might be overwritten in the board > > file anyway? If we were to do this for the entire architecture, we would > > need to define a weak board_fix_fdt, which could be overwritten, if I > > understand correctly. > > It seems we should handle this similarly to > arch/arm/mach-imx/imx8m/soc.c, where peripherals are disabled > according to the SoC fuses. > > Since this is a property of the SoC rather than a particular board, I > would prefer to implement the fuse-based fixup once in the common > i.MX95 SoC code instead of adding the same board_fix_fdt() > implementation to every i.MX95 board. > > This would also avoid requiring each new i.MX95 board to duplicate > this code in the future. > > Could you please move this to the common i. MX95 SoC code? If there is > a technical reason we can't do that, we can revisit the per-board > approach.
I think the only way I can implement it is by using board_fix_fdt. For the iMX8M, the Linux device tree peripherals are disabled based on the fuses. This has already been implemented for the iMX95 (ft_system_setup). However, board_fix_fdt disables the peripherals in the device tree for U-Boot proper. I can't find a machine-specific function. Am I missing something? Should board_fix_fdt be defined in an arch based file? Wouldn't that be incorrect, given that it is called 'board_...'? Regards, Stefan
