On Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 5:33 PM Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: > > On 9/17/24 8:21 AM, Lothar Rubusch wrote: > > Introduce the support for three variants of Enclustra's Intel Mercury AA1 > > (with > > Intel Arria10) SoMs and additional configs. This is supposed to be the first > > step to upstream several of Enclustras SoC FPGA Modules. There are still > > things > > to be modified. So, this is supposed to start the discussion and also to > > clarify some of my open issues. > > > > On the DT approach: I can agree that in parallel I may go for upstreaming > > the kernel DT. There is a fundamental difference, still: In order to > > represent the combination of module + baseboard + bootmode for the kernel > > DT we have to use a mechanism like DTO. For u-boot this can be simpler. > > Currently the few adjustments needed will be represented by the DT files as > > are. I propose to keep them, and in case remove them later, which I doubt, > > since the full DT for the kernel will cover more details. In case > > refactoring is needed I can update the DT also in u-boot. > I assume after the LPC discussion, there will be a V3 ?
Yes. V3 affects mainly the DT question. As of the LPC discussions I had, currently I'm about to rework the DT material. The material will need to pass dtbs_check/dtschema. Functionality then needs to be verified on my hardware zoo, and eventually I upstream it directly to the Linux kernel ML. If successful, then, in u-boot I will build up on upstream DTs as proposed here initially. V2: Please, feel free to already review V2 patch set. As I assume still some issues. Alternatively, we do this on the V3 patch set. No stress! Every feedback here is highly appreciate!! I pretend putting the involved u-boot people here in CC on the kernel ML. Pls, let me know if I need to do the u-boot ML in CC as well.
