Hello Marcel, Am Donnerstag, den 26.08.2021, 14:14 +0200 schrieb Marcel Ziswiler: > From: Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswi...@toradex.com> > > With the move to using binman to generate SPL aka u-boot-spl-ddr.bin > and > U-Boot proper aka u-boot.itb every board now covers such > configuration > in its own U-Boot specific device tree include. Introduce a new > common > imx8mm-binman.dtsi which covers the common part of that > configuration. > > Signed-off-by: Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswi...@toradex.com> > > --- > > arch/arm/dts/imx8mm-binman.dtsi | 136 > ++++++++++++++++++ > arch/arm/dts/imx8mm-cl-iot-gate-u-boot.dtsi | 126 ++-------------- > arch/arm/dts/imx8mm-evk-u-boot.dtsi | 124 +--------------- > .../dts/imx8mm-kontron-n801x-s-u-boot.dtsi | 123 +--------------- > arch/arm/dts/imx8mm-venice-u-boot.dtsi | 120 +--------------- > arch/arm/dts/imx8mm-verdin-u-boot.dtsi | 123 +--------------- > 6 files changed, 156 insertions(+), 596 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 arch/arm/dts/imx8mm-binman.dtsi > > diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/imx8mm-binman.dtsi b/arch/arm/dts/imx8mm- > binman.dtsi > new file mode 100644 > index 00000000000..2d98c1ef577 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/arch/arm/dts/imx8mm-binman.dtsi
is it really necessary to create a new binman include? I have added the nodes for imx8mp directly to the imx8mp-u-boot.dtsi. I guess you did this because not all boards are converted yet. But I have tried this when I moved binman to the common include for imx8mp. As the phycore- imx8mp was also not converted at that point. It did not hurt having the binman nodes included. At least back then. I just not like to see that the file structure diverges. If there is a good reason I'd rather also move the binman nodes for imx8mp to a imx8mp-binman.dtsi. Regards, Teresa
