[U-Boot] [PATCH] ni: Add NIZYNQ platform

[Michal Simek]

On 23.11.2017 04:42, Wilson Lee wrote:
> Hi Michal,
> 
> On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 08:11 +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 22.11.2017 04:06, Wilson Lee wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Michal,
>>>
>>> On Wed, 2017-11-08 at 07:27 +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 8.11.2017 03:54, Wilson Lee wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Initial platform creation for NIZYNQ.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Joe Hershberger <joe.hershberger at ni.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Keng Soon Cheah <keng.soon.cheah at ni.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Wilson Lee <wilson.lee at ni.com>
>>>>> Cc: Chen Yee Chew <chen.yee.chew at ni.com>
>>>>> Cc: Albert Aribaud <albert.u.boot at aribaud.net>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  arch/arm/Kconfig  | 15 +++++++++++++++
>>>>>  arch/arm/Makefile |  4 +++-
>>>>>  board/ni/Kconfig  | 13 +++++++++++++
>>>>>  3 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>  create mode 100644 board/ni/Kconfig
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig
>>>>> index 83b7aa5..ae34821 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig
>>>>> @@ -767,6 +767,20 @@ config ARCH_ZYNQMP
>>>>>  	select DM_USB if USB
>>>>>  	imply FAT_WRITE
>>>>>  
>>>>> +config NIZYNQ
>>>>> +	bool "National Instruments zynq Platform"
>>>>> +	select CPU_V7
>>>>> +	select SUPPORT_SPL
>>>>> +	select OF_CONTROL
>>>>> +	select SPL_OF_CONTROL if SPL
>>>>> +	select DM
>>>>> +	select DM_ETH
>>>>> +	select DM_GPIO
>>>>> +	select SPL_DM if SPL
>>>>> +	select DM_MMC
>>>>> +	select DM_SERIAL
>>>>> +	select SPL_SEPARATE_BSS if SPL
>>>>> +
>>>> What's the reason for this? You should reuse current ZYNQ
>>>> fragment
>>>> and
>>>> if this selects something what you don't want then we should
>>>> changethat. Look at syzygy or topic boards which are using
>>>> existing
>>>> zynq
>>>> infrastructure.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Michal
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The reason for adding NIZYNQ instead of reuse ARCH_ZYNQ. That is
>>> because we need NIZYNQ at the same level with ARCH_ZYNQ in
>>> menuconfig.
>>> We are thinking that it would be missleading, if our customer need
>>> to
>>> select Xilinx Zynq Platform before they can select NI product. 
>>>
>>> Hence, what we wish to get the menuconfig that look like below,
>>>
>>> +------------------------ Target select ------------------------+
>>>>
>>>>   Use the arrow keys to navigate this window or press
>>>> the      |  
>>>>  hotkey of the item you wish to select followed by the <SPACE |  
>>>>   BAR>. Press <?> for additional information about
>>>> this        |  
>>>> +----^(-)---------------------------------------------------+ |  
>>>>>
>>>>> ( ) Support pcm-052                                        |
>>>>> |  
>>>>> ( ) Support BK4r1                                          |
>>>>> |  
>>>>  |( ) Xilinx Zynq Platform                                   |
>>>> |  
>>>>>
>>>>> ( ) Support Xilinx ZynqMP Platform                         |
>>>>> |  
>>>>> (X) National Instruments zynq Platform                     |
>>>>> |  
>>>>> ( ) NVIDIA Tegra                                           |
>>>>> |  
>>>> +----+(+)---------------------------------------------------+ |  
>>> +---------------------------------------------------------------+  
>>>>
>>>>                     <Select>      < Help
>>>>>                      |  
>>> +---------------------------------------------------------------+
>>>
>> I understand that you want to put there a little bit of marketing but
>> moving to DM should avoid doing this and really I want to make xilinx
>> ports generic as much as possible.
>>
>> What we can do is to change description to be more understandable
>> like
>> "Xilinx Zynq based platform".
> 
> After some discussion, we think that changing the description to be
> more understandable as you suggested above is make sense to us and it
> is a good approache also. May I know, do you will submit a commit to
> change the description or we might need to submit ourself on changing
> the description?

I have just sent that patch. Please look at it and ack/nack or propose
better names.

> 
>>
>> Is there something what will use NIZYNQ symbol in the code? Does that
>> mean that there is something what is not handle now that you have to
>> use
>> this symbol?
> 
> I think that is alright. Because, we are not using NIZYNQ symbol in the
> code.

good.

> 
> Furthermore, we are using our own header file (something like zynq-
> common.h) due to it will provide more flexibility on defining stuff
> (such as undefine something that defined in zynq-common, define
> CONFIG_EXTRA_ENV_SETTINGS, CONFIG_PREBOOT and etc..). I think we can
> easily change the default header file from zynq-common.h to our own one
> by redefine "SYS_CONFIG_NAME" again in defconfig. By the way, may I
> know is it have a better way for not keep on redefining the
> "SYS_CONFIG_NAME" in every board defconfig if we have 20+ boards.

Do you have any repo with these boards to have impression how exactly it
looks like now? Where is the difference? In variables?
Eveything should be moved to Kconfig till the end of this year and will
see how it goes but some stuff like environment setting, etc will be
problematic.
I think it will be the best if you can submit what you want to add - 2-3
boards and we can look at it and try to find out a way how this can be
merged.

Thanks,
Michal