On 16.07.19 09:50, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > 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? Ok, let's do it like this. I will soon send another reply to the original patch with the proposed naming changes. Thanks, Frieder
