[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aXOOiIlUihSMTQiL@lizhi-Precision-Tower-5810>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2026 10:06:48 -0500
From: Frank Li <Frank.li@....com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: Sherry Sun <sherry.sun@....com>, robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
conor+dt@...nel.org, shawnguo@...nel.org, s.hauer@...gutronix.de,
festevam@...il.com, daniel.baluta@....com,
dario.binacchi@...rulasolutions.com,
alexander.stein@...tq-group.com, Markus.Niebel@...group.com,
matthias.schiffer@...group.com, y.moog@...tec.de,
josua@...id-run.com, francesco.dolcini@...adex.com,
primoz.fiser@...ik.com, kernel@...gutronix.de,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, imx@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] arch: arm64: imx93-wevk: Add i.MX93 Wireless EVK
board support
On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 10:02:34AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 10:44:48AM +0800, Sherry Sun wrote:
> > i.MX93 Wireless SiP is created by integrating i.MX93 and IW610 WLCSP
> > (Wi-Fi + BLE + 802.15.4). And i.MX93 Wireless EVK board with the i.MX93
> > Wireless SiP basically reuse the i.MX93 11x11 EVK board, with some minor
> > functional and pin connection differences.
> >
> > Here are the detailed differences between i.MX93 Wireless EVK and i.MX93
> > 11x11 EVK board.
> >
> > Function differences:
> > Function i.MX93W EVK i.MX93 EVK
> > WIFI/BT IW610 in i.MX93W IW612 M.2 module
> > MQS N Y
> > PDM MIC N Y
> > M.2 N Y
> > RPi 40-pin HDR Limited support(pin conflict) Y
> >
> > Pin connection differences:
> > Function Signal name i.MX93W EVK i.MX93 EVK
> > WIFI/BT SPI_FRM SAI1_TXFS (spi1.PCS0) GPIO_IO08 (spi3.PCS0)
> > SPI_TXD SAI1_TXC (spi1.SIN) GPIO_IO09 (spi3.SIN)
> > SPI_RXD SAI1_RXD0 (spi1.SOUT) GPIO_IO10 (spi3.SOUT)
> > SPI_CLK SAI1_TXD0 (spi1.SCK) GPIO_IO11 (spi3.SCK)
> > SPI_INT CCM_CLKO1 on-board IO expander
> > NB_WAKE_IN PDM_CLK on-module IO expander
> > WL_WAKE_IN PDM_BIT_STREAM0 on-module IO expander
> > IND_RST_WL PDM_BIT_STREAM1 on-module IO expander
> > IND_RST_NB GPIO_IO28 on-module IO expander
> > PDn GPIO_IO29 on-module IO expander
> > NB_WAKE_OUT GPIO_IO14 on-board IO expander
> > WL_WAKE_OUT GPIO_IO15 CCM_CLKO1
> > I2C3 I2C3_SDA GPIO_IO00 GPIO_IO28
> > I2C3_SCL GPIO_IO01 GPIO_IO29
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sherry Sun <sherry.sun@....com>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/Makefile | 1 +
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx93w-evk.dts | 73 ++++++++++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 74 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx93w-evk.dts
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/Makefile b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/Makefile
> > index 700bab4d3e60..d0ea746c59b8 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/Makefile
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/Makefile
> > @@ -418,6 +418,7 @@ dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MXC) += imx93-9x9-qsb-i3c.dtb
> > dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MXC) += imx93-11x11-evk.dtb
> > dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MXC) += imx93-11x11-frdm.dtb
> > dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MXC) += imx93-14x14-evk.dtb
> > +dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MXC) += imx93w-evk.dtb
> > dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MXC) += imx93-kontron-bl-osm-s.dtb
> > dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MXC) += imx93-phyboard-nash.dtb
> > dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MXC) += imx93-phyboard-segin.dtb
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx93w-evk.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx93w-evk.dts
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..f09587dc74f6
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx93w-evk.dts
> > @@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT)
> > +/*
> > + * Copyright 2026 NXP
> > + */
> > +
> > +#include "imx93-11x11-evk.dts"
> > +
> > +/ {
> > + model = "NXP i.MX93W EVK board";
> > + compatible = "fsl,imx93-wireless-evk", "fsl,imx93";
> > +
> > + /delete-node/ regulator-m2-pwr;
>
> If you remove nodes then clearly you do not share a common design, thus
> you should not include other DTSI... and definitely even more confusing
> to include other DTS.
>
> > +
> > + sound-bt-sco {
> > + status = "disabled";
> > + };
> > +
> > + sound-micfil {
> > + status = "disabled";
>
> Kind of same here.
>
> It's poor practice to include DTS inside DTS, some platforms disallow
> this. Is it acceptable pattern in NXP/iMX?
Some old platform used it. It is discouraged for new platform.
Frank
>
> > + };
> > +};
> > +
> > +&pcal6524 {
> > + /delete-node/ m2-pcm-level-shifter-hog;
>
> Why do you remove so much?
>
> > +};
> > +
> > +®_usdhc3_vmmc {
> > + /delete-property/ vin-supply;
>
> Do you understand how inclusion works? You claim here you have common
> parts. Removing them means they are not common.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists