[PATCH v3] ARM: imx6: DHCOM i.MX6 PDK: Convert to DM_ETH

[Harald Seiler]

Hello Marek,

On Wed, 2020-04-15 at 19:02 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 4/15/20 5:54 PM, Harald Seiler wrote:
> > Use DM_ETH instead of legacy networking.  Add VIO as a fixed regulator
> > to the relevant device-trees and augment the FEC node with properties
> > for the reset GPIO.
> > 
> > It should be noted that the relevant properties for the reset GPIO
> > already exist in the PHY node but U-Boot currently ignores those and
> > only supports the bus-level reset properties in the FEC node.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Harald Seiler <hws at denx.de>
> > ---
> > 
> > Notes:
> >     Changes in v2:
> >       - Move reset and VIO to device-tree.
> >       - Always enable the clock, not just if CONFIG_FEC_MXC=y.
> >     
> >     Changes in v3:
> >       - Rename the dt file to imx6qdl-dhcom-pdk2-u-boot.dtsi because the PHY is
> >         pdk2 specific.
> >       - More verbose commit message.
> > 
> >  arch/arm/dts/imx6dl-dhcom-pdk2-u-boot.dtsi  |  6 +++
> >  arch/arm/dts/imx6q-dhcom-pdk2-u-boot.dtsi   |  2 +
> >  arch/arm/dts/imx6qdl-dhcom-pdk2-u-boot.dtsi | 22 +++++++++
> >  board/dhelectronics/dh_imx6/dh_imx6.c       | 51 +--------------------
> >  configs/dh_imx6_defconfig                   |  2 +
> >  5 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-)
> >  create mode 100644 arch/arm/dts/imx6dl-dhcom-pdk2-u-boot.dtsi
> >  create mode 100644 arch/arm/dts/imx6qdl-dhcom-pdk2-u-boot.dtsi
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/imx6dl-dhcom-pdk2-u-boot.dtsi b/arch/arm/dts/imx6dl-dhcom-pdk2-u-boot.dtsi
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..fc7dffea2a69
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/arch/arm/dts/imx6dl-dhcom-pdk2-u-boot.dtsi
> 
> Do we really need a separate DT for DL ? If so, this should be a
> separate patch.

I can't really comment on the reason for the two separate device-trees but
it looks like they were introduced for commit 8039211a8a9c ("ARM: imx6:
DHCOM i.MX6 PDK: config SPL to load U-Boot fitImage with mulitple DTs").

I'm not sure I understand why you want two separate patches here.
Wouldn't it make more sense to fix both device-trees in one go so we don't
have a broken U-Boot for the DL version from just the first patch (which
would e.g. hurt bisecting)?

-- 
Harald