[U-Boot] [PATCH] ni: Add NIZYNQ platform

[Wilson Lee <wilson.lee@ni.com>]

Hi Michal,

On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 08:11 +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 22.11.2017 04:06, Wilson Lee wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Michal,
> > 
> > On Wed, 2017-11-08 at 07:27 +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> > > 
> > > On 8.11.2017 03:54, Wilson Lee wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Initial platform creation for NIZYNQ.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Joe Hershberger <joe.hershberger@ni.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Keng Soon Cheah <keng.soon.cheah@ni.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Wilson Lee <wilson.lee@ni.com>
> > > > Cc: Chen Yee Chew <chen.yee.chew@ni.com>
> > > > Cc: Albert Aribaud <albert.u.boot@aribaud.net>
> > > > ---
> > > >  arch/arm/Kconfig  | 15 +++++++++++++++
> > > >  arch/arm/Makefile |  4 +++-
> > > >  board/ni/Kconfig  | 13 +++++++++++++
> > > >  3 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >  create mode 100644 board/ni/Kconfig
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig
> > > > index 83b7aa5..ae34821 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig
> > > > @@ -767,6 +767,20 @@ config ARCH_ZYNQMP
> > > >  	select DM_USB if USB
> > > >  	imply FAT_WRITE
> > > >  
> > > > +config NIZYNQ
> > > > +	bool "National Instruments zynq Platform"
> > > > +	select CPU_V7
> > > > +	select SUPPORT_SPL
> > > > +	select OF_CONTROL
> > > > +	select SPL_OF_CONTROL if SPL
> > > > +	select DM
> > > > +	select DM_ETH
> > > > +	select DM_GPIO
> > > > +	select SPL_DM if SPL
> > > > +	select DM_MMC
> > > > +	select DM_SERIAL
> > > > +	select SPL_SEPARATE_BSS if SPL
> > > > +
> > > What's the reason for this? You should reuse current ZYNQ
> > > fragment
> > > and
> > > if this selects something what you don't want then we should
> > > changethat. Look at syzygy or topic boards which are using
> > > existing
> > > zynq
> > > infrastructure.
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Michal
> > > 
> > > 
> > The reason for adding NIZYNQ instead of reuse ARCH_ZYNQ. That is
> > because we need NIZYNQ at the same level with ARCH_ZYNQ in
> > menuconfig.
> > We are thinking that it would be missleading, if our customer need
> > to
> > select Xilinx Zynq Platform before they can select NI product. 
> > 
> > Hence, what we wish to get the menuconfig that look like below,
> > 
> > +------------------------ Target select ------------------------+
> > > 
> > >   Use the arrow keys to navigate this window or press
> > > the      |  
> > >  hotkey of the item you wish to select followed by the <SPACE |  
> > >   BAR>. Press <?> for additional information about
> > > this        |  
> > > +----^(-)---------------------------------------------------+ |  
> > > > 
> > > > ( ) Support pcm-052                                        |
> > > > |  
> > > > ( ) Support BK4r1                                          |
> > > > |  
> > >  |( ) Xilinx Zynq Platform                                   |
> > > |  
> > > > 
> > > > ( ) Support Xilinx ZynqMP Platform                         |
> > > > |  
> > > > (X) National Instruments zynq Platform                     |
> > > > |  
> > > > ( ) NVIDIA Tegra                                           |
> > > > |  
> > > +----+(+)---------------------------------------------------+ |  
> > +---------------------------------------------------------------+  
> > > 
> > >                     <Select>      < Help
> > > >                     |  
> > +---------------------------------------------------------------+
> > 
> I understand that you want to put there a little bit of marketing but
> moving to DM should avoid doing this and really I want to make xilinx
> ports generic as much as possible.
> 
> What we can do is to change description to be more understandable
> like
> "Xilinx Zynq based platform".

After some discussion, we think that changing the description to be
more understandable as you suggested above is make sense to us and it
is a good approache also. May I know, do you will submit a commit to
change the description or we might need to submit ourself on changing
the description?

> 
> Is there something what will use NIZYNQ symbol in the code? Does that
> mean that there is something what is not handle now that you have to
> use
> this symbol?

I think that is alright. Because, we are not using NIZYNQ symbol in the
code.

Furthermore, we are using our own header file (something like zynq-
common.h) due to it will provide more flexibility on defining stuff
(such as undefine something that defined in zynq-common, define
CONFIG_EXTRA_ENV_SETTINGS, CONFIG_PREBOOT and etc..). I think we can
easily change the default header file from zynq-common.h to our own one
by redefine "SYS_CONFIG_NAME" again in defconfig. By the way, may I
know is it have a better way for not keep on redefining the
"SYS_CONFIG_NAME" in every board defconfig if we have 20+ boards.


Thanks, Michal.

Best Regards,
Wilson Lee