[U-Boot] [PATCH RFC 5/5] imx: mx6ul: Add initial board support for Engicam GEAM6UL

[Jagan Teki]

Hi Fabio,

+ Tom (looking for any suggestions for not maintaining separate board
files if the board code is sharing different boards with same SOC)

On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Fabio Estevam <festevam at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Jagan,
>
> On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 5:22 AM, Jagan Teki <jagannadh.teki at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> diff --git a/board/freescale/mx6ul/Kconfig b/board/freescale/mx6ul/Kconfig
>> index f97b905..d902cd0 100644
>> --- a/board/freescale/mx6ul/Kconfig
>> +++ b/board/freescale/mx6ul/Kconfig
>
> At least for i.MX we follow the convention:
> board/vendor/vendorboardname, so under board/freescale directory we
> would expect boards manufactured by FSL/NXP only.

Please see below for this.

>
>> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
>> -if TARGET_MX6UL_14X14_EVK || TARGET_MX6UL_9X9_EVK
>> +if TARGET_MX6UL_14X14_EVK || TARGET_MX6UL_9X9_EVK || TARGET_MX6UL_GEAM_KIT
>>
>>  config SYS_BOARD
>>         default "mx6ul"
>> diff --git a/board/freescale/mx6ul/MAINTAINERS b/board/freescale/mx6ul/MAINTAINERS
>> index 20caeee..3265858 100644
>> --- a/board/freescale/mx6ul/MAINTAINERS
>> +++ b/board/freescale/mx6ul/MAINTAINERS
>> @@ -5,3 +5,8 @@ F:      board/freescale/mx6ul/
>
> It would be better if you were listed as the maintainer of the Engicam
> mx6ul board.
>
> How can I person that does not have the hardware nor it is familiar
> with it, be the maintainer of such platform?

Please do read the thread fully before commenting, I've mentioned the
state of hardware when I relied to Peng. And also this is an RFC patch
I'm looking for comments on function like changes whether the flow of
adding code to existing software is meaningful or not and not intended
to directly applying these onto ML.

>
>> --- a/board/freescale/mx6ul/board.c
>> +++ b/board/freescale/mx6ul/board.c
>> @@ -693,8 +693,10 @@ int checkboard(void)
>>  {
>>         if (is_mx6ul_9x9_evk())
>>                 puts("Board: MX6UL 9x9 EVK\n");
>> -       else
>> +       else if (is_mx6ul_14x14_evk())
>>                 puts("Board: MX6UL 14x14 EVK\n");
>> +       else
>> +               puts("Board: MX6UL GEA KIT\n");
>>
>>         return 0;
>
> If I want to change board.c to improve/fix the code for mx6ulevk there
> is risk that such change could break mx6ulgea support.
>
> I prefer that you place the new board at board/engicam/mx6ulgea, or something.

But I prefer to maintain the same on board/freescale/imx6ul. Becuase,
If the most of the code is common to all boards with specific SOC it's
better to have common code for reusability instead of adding different
board files with duplicate code. For example please see board/sunxi or
board/xilinx/zynq where microzed, zed or zynbo not directly
manufactured from xilinx but they maintained as common.

>
>
>> --- a/include/configs/mx6ul.h
>> +++ b/include/configs/mx6ul.h
>> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
>>  #include <asm/imx-common/gpio.h>
>>
>>  #define is_mx6ul_9x9_evk()     CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(TARGET_MX6UL_9X9_EVK)
>> +#define is_mx6ul_14x14_evk()   CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(TARGET_MX6UL_14x14_EVK)
>
> This seems to be an unrelated change.

OK, will fix.

thanks!
-- 
Jagan Teki
Free Software Engineer | www.openedev.com
U-Boot, Linux | Upstream Maintainer
Hyderabad, India.