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

[Marek Vasut]

On 4/15/20 7:53 PM, Harald Seiler wrote:
> 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").

Oh, so we already have two DTs, OK.

> 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)?

I didn't realize we already have two DTs, sorry, please ignore.