[lkml]   [2019]   [Jul]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] ARM: dts: imx6ul-kontron-ul2: Add Exceet/Kontron iMX6-UL2 SoM
On 16.07.19 09:50, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 at 17:21, Schrempf Frieder
> <> wrote:
>> Hi Krzysztof,
>> On 12.07.19 16:12, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> Add support for iMX6-UL2 modules from Kontron Electronics GmbH (before
>>> acquisition: Exceet Electronics) and evalkit boards based on it:
>>> 1. i.MX6 UL System-on-Module, a 25x25 mm solderable module (LGA pads and
>>> pin castellations) with 256 MB RAM, 1 MB NOR-Flash, 256 MB NAND and
>>> other interfaces,
>>> 1. UL2 evalkit, w/wo eMMC, without display,
>>> 2. UL2 evalkit with 4.3" display,
>>> 3. UL2 evalkit with 5.0" display.
>>> This includes device nodes for unsupported displays (Admatec
>>> T043C004800272T2A and T070P133T0S301).
>>> The work is based on Exceet source code (GPLv2) with numerous changes:
>>> 1. Reorganize files,
>>> 2. Rename Exceet -> Kontron,
>>> 3. Fix coding style errors,
>>> 4. Fix DTC warnings,
>>> 5. Extend compatibles so eval boards inherit the SoM compatible,
>>> 6. Use defines instead of GPIO flag values,
>>> 7. Adjust operating points of CPU0,
>>> 8. Sort nodes alphabetically.
>>> In downstream BSP the Exceet name still appears in multiple places
>>> therefore I left it in the model names.
>> First, thanks for your work. I planned to upstream these boards myself
>> after the FSL QSPI spi-mem driver was merged in 5.1, but didn't have
>> time to finalize and send the patches.
>> Meanwhile we came up with a new naming scheme for our boards, that
>> hasn't been implemented yet. But I would like to take this chance to
>> implement the new scheme.
> Sure, I see no problem in using different names, matching downstream
> kernel. Just point me to proper names.
>> Also there are some more flavors of the SoM (with i.MX6ULL instead of
>> i.MX6UL, with 512MiB instead of 256MiB flash/RAM), that I would like to
>> add and for which common parts of the SoM dtsi would need to be factored
>> out to a separate file.
> I have only this one particular flavor so I would prefer to upstream
> only this one. I do not know all the possible combinations or for
> example the most interesting ones. I think after this patchset we can
> refactor the DTS whenever its needed - split common parts, add new
> files.
>> I would prefer to at least apply the naming changes before merging. The
>> additional board flavors could be added before merging or I could send
>> them as follow-up patches. What do you think?
> Let's change the naming and add new flavors as follow ups?

Ok, let's do it like this. I will soon send another reply to the
original patch with the proposed naming changes.

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-16 10:03    [W:0.043 / U:26.152 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site