Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: arm: rockchip: add Radxa ROCK 5C Lite

[Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org>]

Hello Fukaumi,

On 2024-12-11 07:09, FUKAUMI Naoki wrote:
> The Radxa ROCK 5C Lite uses a different SoC (RK3582) compared to the
> Radxa ROCK 5C (RK3588S2), but the two are compatible from a software
> perspective.
> 
> Fixes: df4e08a5eed1 ("dt-bindings: arm: rockchip: add Radxa ROCK 5C")
> Signed-off-by: FUKAUMI Naoki <naoki@radxa.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
> index 753199a12923..2254ee079094 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
> @@ -895,7 +895,7 @@ properties:
>            - const: radxa,rock-5b
>            - const: rockchip,rk3588
> 
> -      - description: Radxa ROCK 5C
> +      - description: Radxa ROCK 5C/5C Lite
>          items:
>            - const: radxa,rock-5c
>            - const: rockchip,rk3588s

I think it would be better to use "rockchip,rk3582" here, to allow
us to possibly use that information later.  For example, we might
want to be able to recognize RK3582-based boards in U-Boot without
the need to look into the e-fuses at some point, for which purpose
having a clear designator in the DT would fit perfectly.

As a reminder, using "rockchip,rk3582" would also require a small
addition to drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c.