[U-Boot] [PATCH] arm: socfpga: Add support for the Terasic DE-0 Atlas board

[Dinh Nguyen]

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de> wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 01, 2015 at 05:12:40 PM, Dinh Nguyen wrote:
>> On 09/01/2015 03:33 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, September 01, 2015 at 09:38:23 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
>> >> On Tue 2015-09-01 00:23:49, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> >>> On Monday, August 31, 2015 at 09:57:05 PM,
>> >>> dinguyen at opensource.altera.com
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >>>> From: Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen at opensource.altera.com>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Add support for the Terasic DE0-Nano/Atlas-SoC Kit, which is a
>> >>>> CycloneV based board. The board can boot from SD/MMC. Ethernet is a
>> >>>> bit different because it has a KSZ9031 PHY, so for now, ethernet
>> >>>> doesn't quite work yet, as a few patches are needed to support the
>> >>>> PHY.
>> >>>
>> >>> I thought we did support the KSZ9031 PHY. What's the problem ?
>> >>>
>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen at opensource.altera.com>
>> >>>> ---
>> >>>> Hi Marek,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> This patch is based on your u-boot-socfpga/wip/boards branch.
>> >>>
>> >>> OK, that makes sense.
>> >>>
>> >>>> Thanks,
>> >>>> Dinh
>> >>>> ---
>> >>>>
>> >>>>  arch/arm/dts/Makefile                        |   1 +
>> >>>>  arch/arm/dts/socfpga_cyclone5_de0_sockit.dts |  61 +++
>> >>>>  arch/arm/mach-socfpga/Kconfig                |   7 +
>> >>>>  board/terasic/de0/MAINTAINERS                |   5 +
>> >>>>  board/terasic/de0/Makefile                   |   9 +
>> >>>
>> >>> I think it might be clearer to rename it to de0-nano-soc, what do you
>> >>> think ? What's the difference between de0-nano-soc and atlas btw ?
>> >>
>> >> Unless they are going to make "de0-mega".. I'd say "de0" is clean
>> >> enough.
>> >
>> > They already make de0-cv , which is cycloneV SoC based, so de0 is not
>> > clear enough, no way. They also make de0-nano , which is cycloneIV based
>> > (without soc).
>>
>> After looking around the site a bit more, I think "de0_nano_sockit" is
>> more appropriate?
>
> It's de0-nano-soc, that's what they call it on that website, right ?
> SoCkit is a separate board.
>

Ah yes, it's de0-nano-soc<space>kit. So "de0-nano-soc" ?

Dinh