[PATCH] arm: dts: fix ast2500-evb inclusion for correct target

[Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>]

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 10:24:58PM -0700, Thirupathaiah Annapureddy wrote:
> 
> 
> On 8/20/2020 5:03 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 02:09:55PM -0700, Thirupathaiah Annapureddy wrote:
> >> Hi Ryan,
> >>
> >> Thanks for reviewing the patch. Please see my comment(s):
> >>
> >> On 8/19/2020 7:06 PM, Ryan Chen wrote:
> >>> Hi
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Thirupathaiah Annapureddy [mailto:thiruan at linux.microsoft.com]
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2020 8:16 AM
> >>>> To: u-boot at lists.denx.de
> >>>> Cc: Maxim Sloyko <maxims@google.com>; Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>;
> >>>> ChiaWei Wang <chiawei_wang@aspeedtech.com>; Ryan Chen
> >>>> <ryan_chen@aspeedtech.com>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: dts: fix ast2500-evb inclusion for correct target
> >>>>
> >>>> Adding Ryan and Chiawei to the list.
> >>>>
> >>>> On 8/17/2020 5:53 PM, Thirupathaiah Annapureddy wrote:
> >>>>> Include ast2500-evb.dtb for CONFIG_TARGET_EVB_AST2500 instead of for
> >>>>> all aspeed targets.
> >>>
> >>> There should not have to many Kconfig for ASPEED platform. 
> >> When you build U-Boot, you have to provide a platform specific defconfig
> >> as the target. ex: evb-ast2500_defconfig.
> >> defconfig specifies the platform specific device tree file.
> >> ex: CONFIG_DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE="ast2500-evb"
> >>
> >> I do not see any reason to make other device trees (ex: ast2600a0-evb.dtb)
> >> when we are building for evb-ast2500.
> > 
> > It keeps the Makefile logic clearer and makes future moves towards more
> > platforms in a single binary easier if we just build all of the dtb
> > files.
> > 
> ast2400 is based on ARM926EJ-S processor (ARMv5-architecture).
> ast2500 is based on ARM1176JZS processor (ARMv6-architecture).
> ast2600 is based on Cortex A7 processor (ARMv7-A architecture).
> 
> Each of the above SOC is using a different ARM CPU(s) with different ARM
> architecture revision. Is it possible for single binary to support multiple
> platforms based on above SOCs? 

Thanks for the details.  It depends on thee goals and needs.  There's
probably some hurdles to supporting v5/v6 and v7 in a single binary.
But yes, if we aren't supporting all 3 of those families yet, we should
include and build the families we can support.  But that would still
mean all ast2500 DTBs for example still.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 659 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20200823/af8c69cf/attachment.sig>