On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 03:18:13PM -0400, Michael Burkey wrote: > Sascha, > > Based on a fairly thorough perusal of the current HEAD from the git, I > am thinking I will implement the Variscite SOM in the following file > structure: > > (FYI - the Variscite development kit includes their own carrier board > which is simply referred to in their published schematics as > "MX6CustomBoard", so I am thinking of segmenting things by SOM and > carrier board, much as you have the PhyFlex and its carrier board.) > > /arch/arm/configs/variscite_mx6_custom_defconfig > /arch/arm/boards/variscite-mx6-custom/board.c > /arch/arm/boards/variscite-mx6-custom/flash-header.imxcfg > /arch/arm/boards/variscite-mx6-custom/lowlevel.c > /arch/arm/boards/variscite-mx6-custom/Makefile > /arch/arm/boards/variscite-mx6-custom/env/(To Be Determined) > /arch/arm/dts/imx6q-var-custom.dts > /arch/arm/dts/imx6q-var-som.dtsi > > Does this fit into your current methodology pretty well? Yes, this looks good. Note that i.MX6 boards often come in different quad/dual variants with slightly different devicetrees. Just to explain the mess we have with the i.MX6 devicetrees... Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
