[Buildroot] [PATCH v2 18/18] board/lx2160ardb: new platform

[Vincent Jardin]

Hi Vladimir,

On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 11:14:24AM +0100, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 11:11:41PM +0200, Vincent Jardin wrote:
> > Just because I'd do support an upstream first instead of a NXP first.
> > The purpose of an upstream first is to make sure that any other boards,
> > including RDB, Silicom, etc... are all based on a same build
> > infrastructure instead of a respective "fork".
> 
> But even with downstream components, they still are based on the same
> build infrastructure.
> 
> With the "forks" you get access to more feature-complete DPDK
> networking, thanks to some non-upstreamable components such as
> dpaa2-mac-standalone. The upstream network community favors fast path
> technologies such as XDP more, and does not make it a priority to
> support DPDK. This is just an example which you might care about.

OK, I'll analyze deeper the differences.

> > Of course, I do understand NXP willingness to control theirs, but here
> > it is about Buildroot, not NXP's Flexbuild. I'd like to read the views
> > of Buildroot's maintainers since I am a novice with Buildroot.
> 
> I don't know if I am reading this as intended or not, but you seem to be
> making the undestandable confusion that it is me with an NXP engineer
> hat who insists on using components from LF.
> 
> There has been a disclaimer in the cover letter of this patch set and of
> its previous versions that explains I am not submitting these changes as
> a work duty, but simply to serve my best personal interests on how to
> make the most use of the platform as a simple user.

Yes, I did review and comments based on your cover letter, "personal
contribution".

> The other Layerscape design boards in Buildroot also use LF kernels,
> U-Boot, ATF, and to my knowledge, that didn't happen due to NXP's
> willingness to control the software on their platform either. Non-NXP
> Layerscape boards (arcturus_ucls1012a_defconfig, kontron_smarc_sal28_defconfig)
> use their own versions of these components and don't seem to be hindered
> by the integration choices made for the RDBs.

OK, I have been checking many other boards of buildroot, and yes, I just
noticed that many are using some custom versions.

so, beside 2 minor comments:
  - the cadence DP
  - (maybe, but your arguments make sense) the consutions of console=ttyAMA0,38400n8
    on a 115200 case.

It is ok for me.

Best regards,
  Vincent

Reviewed-by: Vincent Jardin <vjardin at free.fr>