[PATCH v2 0/7] add support for Enclustra Mercury AA1 SoMs

[Lothar Rubusch]

On Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 5:33 PM Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de> wrote:
>
> On 9/17/24 8:21 AM, Lothar Rubusch wrote:
> > Introduce the support for three variants of Enclustra's Intel Mercury AA1 (with
> > Intel Arria10) SoMs and additional configs. This is supposed to be the first
> > step to upstream several of Enclustras SoC FPGA Modules. There are still things
> > to be modified. So, this is supposed to start the discussion and also to
> > clarify some of my open issues.
> >
> > On the DT approach: I can agree that in parallel I may go for upstreaming
> > the kernel DT. There is a fundamental difference, still: In order to
> > represent the combination of module + baseboard + bootmode for the kernel
> > DT we have to use a mechanism like DTO. For u-boot this can be simpler.
> > Currently the few adjustments needed will be represented by the DT files as
> > are. I propose to keep them, and in case remove them later, which I doubt,
> > since the full DT for the kernel will cover more details. In case
> > refactoring is needed I can update the DT also in u-boot.
> I assume after the LPC discussion, there will be a V3 ?

Yes.

V3 affects mainly the DT question. As of the LPC discussions I had,
currently I'm about to rework the DT material. The material will need
to pass dtbs_check/dtschema. Functionality then needs to be verified
on my hardware zoo, and eventually I upstream it directly to the Linux
kernel ML. If successful, then, in u-boot I will build up on upstream
DTs as proposed here initially.

V2: Please, feel free to already review V2 patch set. As I assume
still some issues. Alternatively, we do this on the V3 patch set. No
stress! Every feedback here is highly appreciate!!

I pretend putting the involved u-boot people here in CC on the kernel
ML. Pls, let me know if I need to do the u-boot ML in CC as well.