U-blox ubx_evk_iris_w1 board flash configurations are similar.

[UrbanVibes]

It seems a lot has been done to distinguish between two different flash types in variants of this board, but as a collegue pointed out the configuration *.c files are identical except for whitespace and one property:
.fcb_fill[0] = 0xFFFFFFFFU,
vs.
.fcb_fill = 0xFFFFFFFFU,

It seems this whole setup for distinguishing flash types is redundant?

@3rang You seem to be involved, can you comment on this?

Sincerely Torbjørn
PS: Maybe a good idea could be to define the u-blox as a SOC and then use that for different eval boards.

[3rang]

@UrbanVibes ,
made a mistake in adding the correct .c file for Macronix. I’ll update it.
yes, it still makes sense — both files and versions are not identical.

Thank you for pointing that out!

[UrbanVibes]

That makes better sense then :-)
I know it's a separate thing, but would it not make sense to have a SOC or board that was just the ubx_iris_w1, so the u-blox module could easily be used on custom boards?

[3rang]

Do you mean having two separate flash build versions and two different board names, instead of combining them into one?

SOC way won’t be accepted by Zephyr as-is, since ubx board is derived from NXP’s SoC family. If you want to create a project based on the ubx iris module, you can simply create it using that configuration and ignore the other flash variant you’re not using.
also, you can update revision.cmake so that a normal build works with the default board configuration.

I hope this answers your question. If there are no further issues, we can close this , and I can open a new PR with the cleanup work.

[UrbanVibes]

What I thought is that the U-Blox module itself should be a unit (board/soc) that could be used by the eval board or any custom board. We based a project on the eval board, but flexcomm0 is wired for SPI, and that gives us a headache. We now have to make our own baseboard with the u-blox and the an overlay with our custom board definitions. The "baseboard" which covers just the u-blox definitions could might as well be defined in zephyr.
Yes - let's consider this closed :-)