[U-Boot] [PATCH v2] imx: i.mx6q: add the initial support for LogicPD i.MX6Q SOM

[Adam Ford]

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Jagan Teki <jagannadh.teki at gmail.com> wrote:
> + Stefano
>
> On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 12:05 AM, Adam Ford <aford173 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Logic PD has an i.MX6Q system on module (SOM) with a development kit. The
>> SOM has a built-in microSD socket, DDR and NAND flash.  The development kit
>> has an SMSC Ethernet PHY, serial debug port and a variety of peripherals.
>> This have been verified to boot the i.MX6Q version over either SD
>> on the development kit or NAND built into the SOM.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Adam Ford <aford173 at gmail.com>
>> ---
>> Changes in V2:
>>   - Alphabetize the modified Kconfig file
>>   - Clean up README file.
>>   - Elminate fdt_high and initrd_high and add bootm_size
>>   - Changed MTDPARTS_DEFAULT to increase the kernel size to 16MB
>>   - Cleaned up the mx6q_2x_MT41K512M16HA.cfg to include headers,
>>     replace hard-coded addresses with human-readable ones, and
>>     remove dead code
>>   - Updated mx6q_2x_MT41K512M16HA.cfg to use BOOT_OFFSET since SD
>>     and NAND have the same offset
>>   - Removed 'ifdef' references that were always true.
>>   - Removed CPU references that didn't exist.
>>   - And made local variables static
>>   - Add reference to worked used to derrive this code
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/mx6/Kconfig b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/mx6/Kconfig
>> index 190e5c6..507c70e 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/mx6/Kconfig
>> +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/mx6/Kconfig
>> @@ -155,6 +155,13 @@ config TARGET_MX6CUBOXI
>>         select BOARD_LATE_INIT
>>         select SUPPORT_SPL
>>
>> +config TARGET_MX6LOGICPD
>> +       bool "mx6logicpd"
>> +       select BOARD_EARLY_INIT_F
>> +       select BOARD_LATE_INIT
>> +       select DM
>> +       select DM_THERMAL
>
> IMHO, Since we are moving i.MX stuff with SPL and dt support a lot of
> code can be prevented from board files like pinctrl(PADS), UART, MMC,
> I2C, FEC,USB. Please better to start adding new board with
> new-features which are supported this will certainly improve
> maintainability and align with latest u-boot features.
>

We're trying to release a new development platform (SabreSD)  that I
used as a model does not do the items you're listing.  I was hoping
that once it got accepted into the U-Boot trunk, that I would do
incremental improvements to bring it more up to date.  I intentionally
set the U-Boot partition large thinking that I would restructure them
later to support SPL without messing up the locations of the rest of
the partitions. It seems to me like the Freescale Sabre boards should
get upgraded if this is a requirement.  Is this really a deal-breaker
to get accepted as a first step?  My goal is to incrementally
integrate those features in as I have time.

adam


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