Re: [Upstream] [PATCH] Add Phytec i.MX93 support

Yannic Moog
2024-01-19T06:49:29Z

Hi Mathieu

On Thu, 2024-01-18 at 12:04 +0100, Mathieu Othacehe wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the review!
>
> > s/imx93_phycore/phycore_imx93
> >
> > To fit into existing PHYTEC boards already in tree.
>
> I deliberately picked that order so that it is aligned with most imx
> boards already supported by u-boot.
>
> The supported imx93 boards follow that pattern:
>
> - imx93_var_som
> - imx93_evk
>
> So it felt natural to have:
>
> - imx93_phycore
>
> Plus the kernel device-trees are also following that order:
>
> - imx93-phycore-xxx
>
> On the other hand, it is true that the existing phycore boards use the
> phytec_* pattern:
>
> - phycore_am335x_r2
> - phycore_imx8mm
> - phycore_imx8mp
> - phycore_rk3288/
>
> So that will be confusing no matter the option that we choose.
>
> I will come up with a v2 fixing your other remarks, but I think that
> this should be addressed beforehand.

We decided not to alter the names after the fact, but for imx8 product family we noticed the same
problem.
Anyway, to avoid this whole issue, please name the defconfig and the device tree to imx93-phyboard-
segin. This avoids the challenge of naming configs when you have multiple carrier boards supported
for the same SoM. Further, for the board/phytec/ dir, only phytec board code is in there, so you may
stick to the phytec naming convention (i.e. phycore_imx93 as Primoz suggested). This also allows to
reuse the phycore code (see imx8mm-phygate-tauri-l for reference).

Yannic
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mathieu
> _______________________________________________
> upstream mailing list
> upstream@lists.phytec.de
> http://lists.phytec.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/upstream