[meta-freescale] [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH] Added support for i.MX6 series Nitrogen6w board Signed-off-by: Pushpalatha <pushpalatha.sg at mistralsolutions.com>
otavio at ossystems.com.br
Mon Dec 17 08:07:53 PST 2012
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Eric Nelson
<eric.nelson at boundarydevices.com> wrote:
> Hi Daiane,
> On 12/17/2012 05:53 AM, Daiane Angolini wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Pushpalatha
>> <pushpalatha.sg at mistralsolutions.com> wrote:
>>> conf/machine/imx6qnitrogen6w.conf | 18 +
>>> .../support_nitrogen6x_config.patch | 27324
>>> recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2012.10.bb | 2 +
>>> .../linux-imx-3.0.35/imx6qnitrogen6w/defconfig | 3020 ++
>>> .../support_for_nitrogen6_configuration.patch | 11469 ++++++++
>>> recipes-kernel/linux/linux-imx_3.0.35.bb | 3 +
>>> 6 files changed, 41836 insertions(+)
>>> create mode 100644 conf/machine/imx6qnitrogen6w.conf
>> This board should be included on meta-fsl-arm-extra. Could you,
>> please, rebase your patches for that project?
>>> create mode 100644
>> Please, take a look https://github.com/Freescale/u-boot-imx
>> This is where we get u-boot from. It´s a fork of mainline one (denx)
>> plus some patches to include some patches that will be included on
>> next u-boot version or some patches to configure something rellated
>> with yocto (for example, scripts for inicialization).
> Who's the maintainer of this tree? It seems that Otavio's been making
> updates to it for OE/Yocto:
> From a brief look, it seems that this is based on the official
> main-line code, which is certainly usable but will lack some
The tree is basically mainline plus a set of backports, fixes and OE
specific environment changes.
> Dirk has been very diligent about tracking the set of patches submitted
> but not yet accepted by main-line U-Boot on i.MX6 in his tree:
> These include things like OTP support which are still in flux
> and some support for Nitrogen6X.
Nice; I think we might try to include some of those for 2012.13 based
tree. What do you think?
> We based our 'production' branch on Dirk's efforts:
> This is what we're shipping with new orders of SABRE Lite or
> Nitrogen6X. Both of those boards use 'nitrogen6x_defconfig' and
> we auto-detect the board for the small changes in flow.
We've included this u-boot in meta-fsl-arm-extra (in a recipe called
u-boot-boundary) so we're tracking the production tree as well,
however it is not build by default due your SPI NOR bootloader being
>> I think it´s better to include your board (nitrogen6w) patches on that
>> repository instead for supporting those patches on the recipe.
> We've submitted patches, but they need some re-work before
> a second attempt.
> In particular, we've been waiting for Troy's patches adding support
> for C Preprocessor usage in the board.cfg files. These will help
> unify the common bits of Solo/DualLite and 6Quad/6Dual.
Indeed; it will help a lot! :)
>> But, the main question here is: Does u-boot mainline support
> A U-Boot based on mx6qsabrelite_config will boot, but ethernet won't
> work, since the PHY reset pin changed between the two boards.
> The other differences (notably audio) aren't really applicable
> to U-Boot.
> A more complete description and comparison is available here:
Nice documentation :)
>> What´s the difference between nitrogen6x and nitrogen6w? May this
>> board use nitrogen6x support someway?
> There isn't any difference besides the name. We originally intended
> to build a "Nitrogen6X" that was a complete clone of SABRE Lite, but
> have decided against it, and have deprecated the name 'Nitrogen6W'.
>> Otavio, could you, please, comment on this? I think it would only a
>> matter of MACHINE_FEATURE.
>>> create mode 100644
>>> create mode 100644
>> The same is applicable to kernel. Apply patches in git repository and
>> then update kernel recipe.
> Same comments apply, though obviously audio routing and Wi-Fi/BT
> support are critical in the kernel.
> Our latest non-Android kernel is available in this branch of
> our GitHub repository:
> It's based on the Freescale release of the same name, minus the
> "boundary". We've included a branch for that to make comparison
This was the tree I used when generating the patch for sabrelite. Is
it possible for you to confirm if something is missing and submit an
update if anything is need?
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio at ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br
More information about the meta-freescale