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

[Tim Harvey]

On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 3:59 AM Marcel Ziswiler
<marcel.ziswiler at toradex.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Teresa
>
> On Fri, 2021-08-27 at 09:21 +0000, Teresa Remmet wrote:
> > 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?
>
> No, I guess not. That's just what we loosely discussed. But this is also exactly why I only posted it as an RFC
> to get such feedback.
>
> > 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.
>
> Yes, maybe we can indeed just put it all into the same imx8mp-u-boot.dtsi. If nobody objects to that idea I can
> try it that way for a v2.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> No, I guess either way will work. Let's hope we get some more feedback on what the others prefer. Thanks!
>

I'm not sure if I understand correctly but if the suggestion is to
create a dtsi that is shared between the imx8mm and imx8mp I don't
think that would be a good idea as there are differences in addresses
and such. In fact, there's a difference in DDR training firmware
between ddr3 and lpddr4 so trying to even combine them into an
imx8mm-u-boot.dtsi doesn't even make sense to me. If anything maybe it
should be a imx8mm-binman-lpddr4-u-boot.dtsi or something like that?
Perhaps ifdef's could handle these differences allowing you to combine
ddr types and SoC's?

Tim