[U-Boot] [PATCH] phycore-pcl060: U-boot support for Phytec phyCORE PCL060

[Wadim Egorov]

Hi,

On 19.04.19 17:20, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 4/19/19 5:06 PM, Parthiban Nallathambi wrote:
>> Hello Marek,
>>
>> On 4/19/19 3:35 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>> On 4/19/19 3:18 PM, Parthiban Nallathambi wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Kconfig
>>>>>> index d29f1ca0b5..9336439340 100644
>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Kconfig
>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Kconfig
>>>>>> @@ -186,6 +186,7 @@ source "board/ti/am43xx/Kconfig"
>>>>>>  source "board/ti/am335x/Kconfig"
>>>>>>  source "board/compulab/cm_t335/Kconfig"
>>>>>>  source "board/compulab/cm_t43/Kconfig"
>>>>>> +source "board/phytec/phycore_pcl060/Kconfig"
>>>>> Here [1] it says the name of the SoM is PCM-060 , what is PCL-060 ?
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]
>>>>> https://www.phytec.eu/product-eu/system-on-modules/phycore-am335x-download/
>>>>>  [...]
>>>> This differs only by the connector. PCM variants are pluggable and PCL variants
>>>> are direct soliderable to the carrier board.
>>>>
>>>> Copied from [1]:
>>>> The PCL-060 System On Module is a connector-less, BGA style variant of the
>>>> PCM-060/phyCORE-AM335x R2 SOM. Unlike traditional Phytec SOM products that support
>>>> high density connectors, the PCL-060 SOM is directly soldered down to the
>>>> phyBOARD-Wega AM335x using Phytec's Direct Solder Connect technology (DSC). This
>>>> solution offers an ultra-low cost Single Board Computer for the AM335x processor, while
>>>> maintaining most of the advantages of the SOM concept.
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://www.phytec.de/fileadmin/user_upload/downloads/Manuals/L-845e_1.pdf
>>> Ah damn, this looks like a consistency problem is coming up. We have
>>> multiple PCM* SoMs in U-Boot, one PCL* SoM and now another PCL/PCM SoM.
>>> But the PCL063 isn't even manufactured in variant with connectors, so I
>>> guess we can ignore that one.
>>>
>>> I wonder whether we should stick to PCM* for all of the Phytec SoMs for
>>> consistency sake and document that PCL060 is also supported or maybe
>>> there's a better way ?
>> Does PCX/PCx makes sense? But we have the same problem with variscite [1] SoM's
>> (either SODIMM or solderable).
>>
>> [1] https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2019-April/365667.html
> PCX would introduce another option, in addition to PCM/PCL, one which
> cannot be easily found on the internet, so I'd like to avoid that. I
> am banking toward the sticking with PCM where possible (simply because
> that's what $searchengine spits out first when you look for that SoM,
> and because we already have plenty of PCM-nnn SoMs), but maybe someone
> has a better idea .

why not simply use the full name of the module instead?

- phyCORE-AM335x
- phyCORE-AM335x R2

I did the same for the phyCORE-RK3288.
There is no real difference between a PCM and PCL SOM. You can take look
at the barebox code for this modules to get some inspiration on how to
handle the different SOM variants.

 
https://git.pengutronix.de/cgit/barebox/tree/arch/arm/boards/phytec-som-am335x

Regards,
Wadim

>