Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: sunxi: Add Anbernic RG35XXSP

Chris Morgan
2024-06-06T16:55:40Z

On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 01:30:45PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 11:26:14AM GMT, Andre Przywara wrote:
> > On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 13:53:38 -0500
> > Chris Morgan <macroalpha82@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > From: Chris Morgan <macromorgan@hotmail.com>
> > >
> > > Add the Anbernic RG35XXSP variant device and consolidate the Anbernic
> > > H700 devices.
> > >
> > > The Anbernic RG35XXSP is almost identical to the RG35XX-Plus, but in a
> > > clamshell form-factor.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Chris Morgan <macromorgan@hotmail.com>
> > > ---
> > > .../devicetree/bindings/arm/sunxi.yaml | 24 +++++++------------
> > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/sunxi.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/sunxi.yaml
> > > index c2a158b75e49..1ae77e5edf9a 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/sunxi.yaml
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/sunxi.yaml
> > > @@ -51,25 +51,19 @@ properties:
> > > - const: allwinner,parrot
> > > - const: allwinner,sun8i-a33
> > >
> > > - - description: Anbernic RG-Nano
> > > - items:
> > > - - const: anbernic,rg-nano
> > > - - const: allwinner,sun8i-v3s
> > > -
> > > - - description: Anbernic RG35XX (2024)
> > > - items:
> > > - - const: anbernic,rg35xx-2024
> > > - - const: allwinner,sun50i-h700
> > > -
> > > - - description: Anbernic RG35XX Plus
> > > + - description: Anbernic H700 Handheld Gaming Console
> >
> > So that's certainly an interesting optimisation, but so far we were using
> > one entry per device, it seems.
> > I am not entirely sure what the purpose of this file is, exactly: just to
> > document the compatible names
>
> That was the initial intent, yes.
>
> > to reserve them and avoid clashes in the future?
>
> And I guess it helps with that too :)
>
> > Or also to put some official names to each device? That seems to
> > somewhat overlap with the root node's model property in the respective
> > device .dts, though.
>
> I guess it's a fair criticism. It would be hard to collect all the
> compatibles without describing which device they belong too though. So
> yeah, there's some redundancy, but removing the descriptions entirely
> would be worse imo.
>
> > It would be good to clarify this, and establish how to group those devices.
> > I mean technically we could for instance put *all* H6 devices into one
> > entry, using the same scheme as below.
> > Not sure that's desired, though.
>
> I don't really have a say there anymore, but I always tend to prefer
> consistency in documentation as a user. Even more so since that kind of
> categorization tends to be very subjective and thus super inconsistent.
>
> Maxime

This is how I was asked to do it in the rockchip.yaml file [1], but I
know different teams have different style requests. Just let me know
what you prefer and I'll get it done that way.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240123212111.202146-3-macroalpha82@gmail.com/

Thank you,
Chris.