Re: [PATCH v1] toradex: {aquila, smarc, verdin}-imx95: add board_fix_fdt

Hi Fabio,

On Wed, Aug 26, 2026 at 11:33:56AM -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
> 
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2026 at 4:45 AM Stefan Eichenberger <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > We discussed this internally and decided to implement it in the same way
> > as NXP does in board/nxp/imx95_frdm/imx95_frdm.c, but I'm not sure why
> > it was necessary to put it in the board file. Perhaps because it can
> > only be done in board_fix_fdt, which might be overwritten in the board
> > file anyway? If we were to do this for the entire architecture, we would
> > need to define a weak board_fix_fdt, which could be overwritten, if I
> > understand correctly.
> 
> It seems we should handle this similarly to
> arch/arm/mach-imx/imx8m/soc.c, where peripherals are disabled
> according to the SoC fuses.
> 
> Since this is a property of the SoC rather than a particular board, I
> would prefer to implement the fuse-based fixup once in the common
> i.MX95 SoC code instead of adding the same board_fix_fdt()
> implementation to every i.MX95 board.
> 
> This would also avoid requiring each new i.MX95 board to duplicate
> this code in the future.
> 
> Could you please move this to the common i. MX95 SoC code? If there is
> a technical reason we can't do that, we can revisit the per-board
> approach.

I think the only way I can implement it is by using board_fix_fdt. For
the iMX8M, the Linux device tree peripherals are disabled based on the
fuses. This has already been implemented for the iMX95
(ft_system_setup). However, board_fix_fdt disables the peripherals in
the device tree for U-Boot proper. I can't find a machine-specific
function. Am I missing something?

Should board_fix_fdt be defined in an arch based file? Wouldn't that be
incorrect, given that it is called 'board_...'?

Regards,
Stefan