From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Maxime Ripard Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] arm64: new board - Emlid Neutis N5 Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 18:40:53 +0200 Message-ID: <20181011164053.zxoucudslmz3w2yn@flea> References: <1538745949-13188-2-git-send-email-aleksandr.aleksandrov@emlid.com> <1539012044-29998-1-git-send-email-aleksandr.aleksandrov@emlid.com> <1539012044-29998-2-git-send-email-aleksandr.aleksandrov@emlid.com> <20181010144957.exrlupoph7ovsmdw@flea> <9398571539259289@myt4-929fb874f3f2.qloud-c.yandex.net> <2d09d6c0-0404-589d-2c34-da846cff4fb8@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2d09d6c0-0404-589d-2c34-da846cff4fb8@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andreas =?utf-8?Q?F=C3=A4rber?= Cc: aleksandr.aleksandrov@emlid.com, Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , Chen-Yu Tsai , David Lechner , Thierry Reding , Noralf =?utf-8?Q?Tr=C3=B8nnes?= , Johan Hovold , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 03:20:11PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: > >> Also, I have a general comments, and it really depends on what your > >> intention about the board ecosystem is. Do you expect the SOM to be > >> swappable in multiple boards, or do you expect to send it as something > >> that is just fixed into a daughter board? > >> > >> In the former case, you probably want to use overlays instead. In the > >> latter, you're fine. > >> > > Right, we expect the SoM to be swappable. I agree, to use overlays is > > more convenient, but > > the devboard DT file will be a reference for the overlays and the future > > boards based on Neutis. > > What about just keeping the common nodes enabled in a SoM .dts, so that > the average board doesn't need an Overlay for booting? I guess the fundamental difference would be if the SoM can be run free-standing or not. If it is, then overlays would be best. If not, then I'm fine with using the include like Aleksandr has used. > @Maxime/Rob, is it possible to merge .dtso files these days? If not, > could that be considered in the big dts Makefile refactoring? :) I don't really know what is that big dts Makefile refactoring you're mentionning, but I don't think we can merge dtso before having the DT connectors in place. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com