Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] dt-bindings: arm: actions: Document Caninos Loucos Labrador

Andreas Färber
2020-04-26T11:50:31Z

+ linux-actions

Am 20.03.20 um 04:51 schrieb Matheus Castello:
> Update the documentation to add the Caninos Loucos Labrador. Labrador
> project consists of a computer on module based on the Actions Semi S500
> processor and the Labrador base board.
>
> Signed-off-by: Matheus Castello <matheus@castello.eng.br>
> ---
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/actions.yaml | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/actions.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/actions.yaml
> index ace3fdaa8396..1b131ceb884a 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/actions.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/actions.yaml
> @@ -24,6 +24,11 @@ properties:
> - lemaker,guitar-bb-rev-b # LeMaker Guitar Base Board rev. B
> - const: lemaker,guitar
> - const: actions,s500
> + - items:
> + - enum:
> + - caninos,labrador-bb # Caninos Loucos Labrador Base Board
> + - const: caninos,labrador
> + - const: actions,s500
>
> # The Actions Semi S700 is a quad-core ARM Cortex-A53 SoC.
> - items:

Now that you chose to stick with caninos rather than lsi prefix, the
sort order compared to lemaker remains wrong.

Looking at https://caninosloucos.org/en/labrador-en/ there's a "CORE
BOARD V2.0" and a "BASE BOARD M V1.0".

Assuming the v2 is not software-relevant, shouldn't the M be reflected
in the compatible string? For example, "caninos,labrador-core" and
"caninos,labrador-m"? You're free to use -bb-m of course, but no need to
copy LeMaker -bb naming for your board. What does your PCB say?

Also note that other recent bindings have been using a description
attribute - not sure whether we can apply that a) to the SoM and b) to
the base board here. Please compare other in-tree bindings.

Regards,
Andreas

--
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH
Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imendörffer
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg)