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

[Marcel Ziswiler]

Hi Tim

On Fri, 2021-08-27 at 08:12 -0700, Tim Harvey wrote:

> ...
> > > > +++ 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?

No, I don't think it is our intention to combine anything from imx8mm and imx8mp at this point. As far as I
understood, rather than introducing a new imx8mm-binman.dtsi the suggestion is to put that into the existing
imx8mm-u-boot.dtsi as well similar to how Teresa did that for phycore-imx8mp and the imx8mp-u-boot.dtsi.

> Perhaps ifdef's could handle these differences allowing you to combine
> ddr types and SoC's?

No, I don't really think that would improve anything over just having separate imx8mm-u-boot.dtsi and imx8mp-u-
boot.dtsi files. On the other hand, I also don't see that anything would stop us from still going down that
route of further combining imx8mm and imx8mp stuff in the future should we really want to.

> Tim

Cheers

Marcel