On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 at 17:21, Schrempf Frieder <frieder.schrempf@xxxxxxxxxx> 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? Best regards, Krzysztof
