From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robin Murphy Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] arm64: dts: rockchip: Add DT for NanoPi M4 Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 22:35:40 +0000 Message-ID: References: <324b75bbeef2552ddde62f4e1834ac908a45bebd.1546981251.git.robin.murphy@arm.com> <1755553.je4OVlYtzY@phil> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1755553.je4OVlYtzY@phil> Content-Language: en-GB List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Heiko Stuebner Cc: linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi Heiko, On 2019-01-08 10:15 pm, Heiko Stuebner wrote: > Hi Robin, > > Am Dienstag, 8. Januar 2019, 22:57:24 CET schrieb Robin Murphy: >> There are a number of subtle differences between the nanopi4 variants, >> and where they disagree, the common DTSI currently follows the details >> of NanoPi M4. In order to improve matters even more, let's add a >> separate DTS for the M4 to which we can start splitting things out >> appropriately. The third variant, NanoPi NEO4, is a lot closer to the M4 >> than either is to the larger T4, so arguably could get away with just >> sharing the M4 DT for now (plus I have neither of the smaller boards to >> actually test with). >> >> Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy > > I'm not sure if Rob actually checks the devicetree list or relies on > patches Cc'ed directly to him for binding review, so you might want > to add the 2 dt maintainers explicitly. Er, that's embarassing... I somehow failed to register that my mindless copy-paste job ends up adding a new binding that *isn't* the one Rob already reviewed :( >> --- >> .../devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml | 5 +++++ >> arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/Makefile | 1 + >> .../boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-nanopi-m4.dts | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ >> 3 files changed, 24 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-nanopi-m4.dts >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml >> index bcc60c492a12..b4756e0cb7d0 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml >> @@ -92,6 +92,11 @@ properties: >> - const: friendlyarm,nanopc-t4 >> - const: rockchip,rk3399 >> >> + - description: FriendlyElec NanoPi M4 >> + items: >> + - const: friendlyarm,nanopi-m4 >> + - const: rockchip,rk3399 >> + > > When we hashed out the Rockchip yaml thingy, there also > came up the possibility of grouping the similar boards together > into an enum, see the rk3399-firefly or the rk3288-evb-* for example. > > So the binding for both could possibly become: > > - description: FriendlyElec NanoPi > items: > - enum: > - friendlyarm,nanopi-m4 > - friendlyarm,nanopi-t4 > - const: rockchip,rk3399 > > We didn't come up with a hard rule for all cases, but the > Nano PI feels like it qualifies ;-) ...but I completely agree with that idea anyway - as the commit log alludes to, this was really just somewhere to move the existing nodes to without much thought involved. I'll give it a day or two for any more comments, then respin at least this patch and make sure the binding update goes to the maintainers properly. Cheers, Robin.