On 03.05.2018 11:34, Jan Lübbe wrote:
[...]
>>> Then the existing selection logic would
>>> handle your case as well.
>> Ohh ... ok. And could you explain please, who we could do that? Because,
>> all our DTs are compatible with barebox DT and barebox would choose simple
>> the first one and boot it. Or is using of Bootloader Spec isn't right
>> way, to solve this issue?
> So in the barebox DT you'd have:
> / {
>         model = "Foo Common i.MX6 Board";
>         compatible = "foo,mx6-common", "fsl,imx6q";
> };
> [...]
>
> Then for the kernel DTs you can use different compatible lists, which
> each use a different and more specific entry.
>
> mx6-variant1.dts:
> / {
>         model = "Foo Variant 1 i.MX6 Board";
>         compatible =
> "foo,mx6-variant1", "foo,mx6-common", "fsl,imx6q";
> };
> [...]
>
> mx6-variant2.dts:
> / {
>         model = "Foo Variant 2 i.MX6 Board";
>         compatible = "foo,mx6-variant2", "foo,mx6-common", "fsl,imx6q";
> };
> [...]
>
> Then, in barebox, you need to have a way to override which compatible
> string the bootspec code is looking for.
Ok, the way is to override/extend barebox DT compatible string while
initialisation,
so barebox would be match only one boot entry.

> I'd prefer this to the machine-id approach, as the DT compatible list
> mechanism is designed exactly for handing these different levels of
> compatibility declarations.
Yes, I agree with you. That could be better for us to solve our issue.
Thank you for explanation!

Do your mean, for using the machine-id in right way, the patch could be
apply?
If Sascha still agree, of course.

Regards,
Andreas