[PATCH] board/imx6sabresd: add the option of imx6solo during FIT matching

[PATCH] board/imx6sabresd: add the option of imx6solo during FIT matching

[jiladahe1997]

From 934d43a647bfee33f32f710500c75ef2490f25f6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mingrui Ren <jiladahe1997@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2021 20:35:11 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] board/imx6sabresd: add imx6solo during FIT matching

When using imx6solo cpu, the 'board_fit_config_name_match' function 
will return -1, then u-boot will choose wrong FIT, and causing further 
problems.

imx6solo is similar to imx6dl, so I just add it into imx6dl.

Signed-off-by: Mingrui Ren <jiladahe1997@gmail.com>
---
 board/freescale/mx6sabresd/mx6sabresd.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/board/freescale/mx6sabresd/mx6sabresd.c b/board/freescale/mx6sabresd/mx6sabresd.c
index 8c35230855..0bd968411e 100644
--- a/board/freescale/mx6sabresd/mx6sabresd.c
+++ b/board/freescale/mx6sabresd/mx6sabresd.c
@@ -928,7 +928,7 @@ int board_fit_config_name_match(const char *name)
 	} else if (is_mx6dqp()) {
 		if (!strcmp(name, "imx6qp-sabresd"))
 			return 0;
-	} else if (is_mx6dl()) {
+	} else if (is_mx6dl() || is_mx6solo()) {
 		if (!strcmp(name, "imx6dl-sabresd"))
 			return 0;
 	}
-- 
2.25.1

Re: [PATCH] board/imx6sabresd: add the option of imx6solo during FIT matching

[Fabio Estevam]

On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 10:20 AM jiladahe1997@gmail.com
<jiladahe1997@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From 934d43a647bfee33f32f710500c75ef2490f25f6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Mingrui Ren <jiladahe1997@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2021 20:35:11 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] board/imx6sabresd: add imx6solo during FIT matching
>
> When using imx6solo cpu, the 'board_fit_config_name_match' function
> will return -1, then u-boot will choose wrong FIT, and causing further
> problems.
>
> imx6solo is similar to imx6dl, so I just add it into imx6dl.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mingrui Ren <jiladahe1997@gmail.com>
> ---
>  board/freescale/mx6sabresd/mx6sabresd.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/board/freescale/mx6sabresd/mx6sabresd.c b/board/freescale/mx6sabresd/mx6sabresd.c
> index 8c35230855..0bd968411e 100644
> --- a/board/freescale/mx6sabresd/mx6sabresd.c
> +++ b/board/freescale/mx6sabresd/mx6sabresd.c
> @@ -928,7 +928,7 @@ int board_fit_config_name_match(const char *name)
>         } else if (is_mx6dqp()) {
>                 if (!strcmp(name, "imx6qp-sabresd"))
>                         return 0;
> -       } else if (is_mx6dl()) {
> +       } else if (is_mx6dl() || is_mx6solo()) {

I thought that NXP did not manufacture any mx6solo sabresd board, only
mx6dl/q/qp sabresd.

Do you have access to a mx6solo sabresd? Or did you make this change
because you have designed your own
board based on the sabresd with a mx6solo device.

Please clarify.

Re: [PATCH] board/imx6sabresd: add the option of imx6solo during FIT matching

[Mingrui Ren]

On 2021/8/30 22:14, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 10:20 AMjiladahe1997@gmail.com
> <jiladahe1997@gmail.com> wrote:
>> From 934d43a647bfee33f32f710500c75ef2490f25f6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Mingrui Ren<jiladahe1997@gmail.com>
>> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2021 20:35:11 +0800
>> Subject: [PATCH] board/imx6sabresd: add imx6solo during FIT matching
>>
>> When using imx6solo cpu, the 'board_fit_config_name_match' function
>> will return -1, then u-boot will choose wrong FIT, and causing further
>> problems.
>>
>> imx6solo is similar to imx6dl, so I just add it into imx6dl.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mingrui Ren<jiladahe1997@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> board/freescale/mx6sabresd/mx6sabresd.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/board/freescale/mx6sabresd/mx6sabresd.c 
>> b/board/freescale/mx6sabresd/mx6sabresd.c
>> index 8c35230855..0bd968411e 100644
>> --- a/board/freescale/mx6sabresd/mx6sabresd.c
>> +++ b/board/freescale/mx6sabresd/mx6sabresd.c
>> @@ -928,7 +928,7 @@ int board_fit_config_name_match(const char *name)
>> } else if (is_mx6dqp()) {
>> if (!strcmp(name, "imx6qp-sabresd"))
>> return 0;
>> - } else if (is_mx6dl()) {
>> + } else if (is_mx6dl() || is_mx6solo()) {
> I thought that NXP did not manufacture any mx6solo sabresd board, only
> mx6dl/q/qp sabresd.
>
> Do you have access to a mx6solo sabresd? Or did you make this change
> because you have designed your own
> board based on the sabresd with a mx6solo device.
>
> Please clarify.
Hi Fabio,

Thanks for your reply. I'm using my own board based on sabresd with mx6solo.

The reson I made this change is that I found on the mx6solo official 
website:
https://www.nxp.com/products/processors-and-microcontrollers/arm-processors/i-mx-applications-processors/i-mx-6-processors/i-mx-6solo-processors-single-core-multimedia-3d-graphics-arm-cortex-a9-core:i.MX6S
In "Development Boards and Designs",it seems that sabresd is used as the 
development board.

Also,the Reference Manual of mx6solo is same as mx6dl.

In summary,I think if someone is going to use mx6solo, he will refer to 
sabresd board. So please consider this patch.


Cheers,

Mingrui Ren

Re: [PATCH] board/imx6sabresd: add the option of imx6solo during FIT matching

[Fabio Estevam]

Hi Mingrui,

On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 11:07 PM Mingrui Ren <jiladahe1997@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Fabio,
>
> Thanks for your reply. I'm using my own board based on sabresd with mx6solo.
>
> The reson I made this change is that I found on the mx6solo official
> website:
> https://www.nxp.com/products/processors-and-microcontrollers/arm-processors/i-mx-applications-processors/i-mx-6-processors/i-mx-6solo-processors-single-core-multimedia-3d-graphics-arm-cortex-a9-core:i.MX6S
> In "Development Boards and Designs",it seems that sabresd is used as the
> development board.

The point is that there is no  mx6sabresd board populated with a mx6solo chip.

> Also,the Reference Manual of mx6solo is same as mx6dl.
>
> In summary,I think if someone is going to use mx6solo, he will refer to
> sabresd board. So please consider this patch.

That would be misleading.

There are other mx6solo boards supported in U-Boot.

mx6sabresd is not one of these boards, so we should not artificially
support a non-existent solo version.

Thanks