Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] board: phytec: imx93: Add phyCORE-i.MX 93 support for all SOM variants

[Wadim Egorov <w.egorov@phytec.de>]

>>>> --- a/board/phytec/phycore_imx93/MAINTAINERS
>>>> +++ b/board/phytec/phycore_imx93/MAINTAINERS
>>>> @@ -9,5 +9,5 @@ F:      arch/arm/dts/imx93-phyboard-segin-u-
>>>> boot.dtsi
>>>>   F:      board/phytec/phycore_imx93/
>>>>   F:      board/phytec/common/imx93_som_detection.c
>>>>   F:      board/phytec/common/imx93_som_detection.h
>>>> -F:      configs/imx93-phyboard-segin_defconfig
>>>> +F:      configs/imx93-phycore_defconfig
>>>
>>> How will you handle this when/if you have another board?
>>
>> That imx93-phycore_defconfig has no more dependency to the carrier
>> board.
> 
> Not true,
> CONFIG_DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE="imx93-phyboard-segin"
> It has a dependency to a board. That is why I am asking.

This approach has served us well for a while.

Most of our u-boot "boards" are designed from a SoM perspective. Also, 
customers typically use the initial carrier board as a reference, often 
following its interface configurations. So in most cases we are good to go.

I'm not sure why you want to bring this up again.