* Wadim Egorov <w.egorov@xxxxxxxxx> [230505 13:38]: > > Am 05.05.23 um 11:39 schrieb Tony Lindgren: > > * Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> [230504 14:33]: > > > Just wondering: if the carrier board can easily work with different > > > SoMs.. in which case, we could do overlay to create the som + carrier > > > overlay to create rdk dtb - this might allow the scheme to scale to > > > additional SoMs and carrier combinations.. and the SoM dtb could be > > > sufficient for something like a bootloader. > > It might be best to limit the overlay usage to devices that might see > > dual use on the carrier board.. Not sure if setting up the entire > > carrier board makes sense as an overlay :) Not sure if folks want to > > debug boot issues on a remote server for example if an overlay is > > needed to boot with Ethernet :) > > Our idea is to create overlays for SoM variants, e.g. an overlay for a SoM > without SPI NOR flash populated. > If we want to reuse a carrier board, we could factor out the carrier board > dts into a dtsi file and provide the needed combinations in form of > different dts files. It probably makes sens to limit the overlays for optional features that are not hardwired. > In the bootloader world the situation is a bit different. > Here we would like to have a universal phycore_am62x "board" that should be > able to handle most carrier board designs using that SoM. And since u-boot > is moving towards having a single source of device trees, this concept will > probably no longer work anymore. So your idea with a SoM dtb sounds > interesting. > I wonder what ideas other SoM vendors have or how it is handled on other > architectures. I'm not sure what the best way to organize things is if there are many SoM and carrier board variants, I guess it depends on the number of the possible permutations :) Regards, Tony
