From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nishanth Menon Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 08:52:27 -0600 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH V5 7/7] board: ti: AM57xx: Add detection logic for AM57xx-evm In-Reply-To: <56CEA7F7.8000804@ti.com> References: <1456338658-5027-1-git-send-email-s-kipisz2@ti.com> <1456338658-5027-8-git-send-email-s-kipisz2@ti.com> <56CEA7F7.8000804@ti.com> Message-ID: <56CF152B.2080206@ti.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 02/25/2016 01:06 AM, Lokesh Vutla wrote: > [..snip..] > [...] >> "setenv fdtfile dra72-evm.dtb; fi;" \ >> "if test $board_name = beagle_x15; then " \ >> "setenv fdtfile am57xx-beagle-x15.dtb; fi;" \ >> + "if test $board_name = am57xx_evm; then " \ >> + "setenv fdtfile am57xx-beagle-x15.dtb; fi;" \ > > Is it the same dtb file for am57xx_evm as well? or is this intentional > and will be updated later? Yes - it should be the same dtb file for 2 reasons: A) At this point in patch, we dont want to break am57xx-evm - mentioned in diffstat to remind ourselves. B) we are attempting to move all these "cape" like variants into device tree overlays -> in which case the same dtb is reused even for am57xx-evm, and overlay with panel and touchscreen for the "gpevm" panel board. So, in almost with 80% certainty, we might not introduce a am57xx_evm.dtb in upstream - we really dont need to. In fact, upstream kernel and current master u-boot does bootup successfully, and would like to maintain it so (point A). -- Regards, Nishanth Menon