[RFC PATCH v1 2/5] arm64: dts: imx8mm: add common -binman.dtsi

[Teresa Remmet]

Hello Marcel,

Am Donnerstag, den 26.08.2021, 14:14 +0200 schrieb Marcel Ziswiler:
> From: Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswiler at toradex.com>
> 
> With the move to using binman to generate SPL aka u-boot-spl-ddr.bin
> and
> U-Boot proper aka u-boot.itb every board now covers such
> configuration
> in its own U-Boot specific device tree include. Introduce a new
> common
> imx8mm-binman.dtsi which covers the common part of that
> configuration.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswiler at toradex.com>
> 
> ---
> 
>  arch/arm/dts/imx8mm-binman.dtsi               | 136
> ++++++++++++++++++
>  arch/arm/dts/imx8mm-cl-iot-gate-u-boot.dtsi   | 126 ++--------------
>  arch/arm/dts/imx8mm-evk-u-boot.dtsi           | 124 +---------------
>  .../dts/imx8mm-kontron-n801x-s-u-boot.dtsi    | 123 +---------------
>  arch/arm/dts/imx8mm-venice-u-boot.dtsi        | 120 +---------------
>  arch/arm/dts/imx8mm-verdin-u-boot.dtsi        | 123 +---------------
>  6 files changed, 156 insertions(+), 596 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 arch/arm/dts/imx8mm-binman.dtsi
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/imx8mm-binman.dtsi b/arch/arm/dts/imx8mm-
> binman.dtsi
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..2d98c1ef577
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/arm/dts/imx8mm-binman.dtsi

is it really necessary to create a new binman include? I have added the
nodes for imx8mp directly to the imx8mp-u-boot.dtsi. I guess you did
this because not all boards are converted yet. But I have tried this
when I moved binman to the common include for imx8mp. As the phycore-
imx8mp was also not converted at that point. It did not hurt having the
binman nodes included. At least back then.

I just not like to see that the file structure diverges. If there is a
good reason I'd rather also move the binman nodes for imx8mp to a
imx8mp-binman.dtsi.

Regards,
Teresa