[PATCH 10/10] xilinx: zynqmp: Support vendor specific board_init

[Stefan Herbrechtsmeier]

Am 16.06.2022 um 17:12 schrieb Michal Simek:
> 
> 
> On 6/8/22 18:20, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote:
>> [CAUTION: External Email]
>>
>> From: Stefan Herbrechtsmeier <stefan.herbrechtsmeier at weidmueller.com>
>>
>> Add a board_init_xilinx function to allow foreign vendors to reuse the
>> xilinx zynqmp board code and add addition code to the board_init
>> function.
> 
> Do you plan to add support for that board who will be using it?

Yes. You could drop the patch for now but it will be good to know if 
this is the right direction to reuse common code from the xilinx board 
files.

>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Herbrechtsmeier 
>> <stefan.herbrechtsmeier at weidmueller.com>
>>
>> ---
>>
>>   board/xilinx/common/board.c  | 5 +++++
>>   board/xilinx/common/board.h  | 2 ++
>>   board/xilinx/zynqmp/zynqmp.c | 2 +-
>>   3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/board/xilinx/common/board.c b/board/xilinx/common/board.c
>> index 5f2afb9def..643959bee7 100644
>> --- a/board/xilinx/common/board.c
>> +++ b/board/xilinx/common/board.c
>> @@ -401,6 +401,11 @@ void *board_fdt_blob_setup(int *err)
>>   }
>>   #endif
>>
>> +int board_init_xilinx(void)
>> +{
>> +       return 0;
>> +}
> 
> This file is used by zynq/zynqmp/versal platforms. I expect there is 
> going to be any message that this function is unused on zynq and versal.

You are right. Should we add it to all platforms?

Is this the correct direction or should we split 
board/xilinx/zynqmp/zynqmp.c into common soc and specific board code?

Regards
   Stefan