Simultaneous support of CONFIG_MX6UL and CONFIG_MX6ULL

Tom Rini trini at
Mon Nov 8 16:14:53 CET 2021

On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at 03:30:06PM +0100, Matthias Schiffer wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> for the submission of support for our TQMa6UL/TQMa6ULL SoM family I've
> been wondering if it would be desirable to allow U-Boot configs that
> support both i.MX6UL and i.MX6ULL. This would allow us to reduce the
> number of required defconfig variants for our SoMs significantly.
> I had a look at the differences between these configurations, and most
> of the code already treats both SoCs the same (lots of "#if
> defined(CONFIG_MX6UL) || defined(CONFIG_MX6ULL)"). The differences are
> sufficiently small that it seems easy to change them to use runtime
> detection for the SoC variant (and maybe not even leave CONFIG_MX6UL
> and CONFIG_MX6ULL as separate config symbols):
> - MX6UL selects HAS_CAAM. Runtime detection should already work (will
> double-check)
> - Fuse support: Easy to switch to runtime detection
> - mx6ul_pins.h vs. mx6ull_pins.h: Mostly identical. Only definitions
> for GPIO5 differ (and none of the differing definitions are used at
> all)
> I can propose patches for these changes if you think that it is a good
> idea.

Generally this sounds good, yes.  We might need to keep the separate
symbols in order to avoid size growth on platforms that only support one
rather than both SoCs however.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 659 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the U-Boot mailing list