On 9/9/2013 3:04 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
On Sep 9, 2013, at 4:42 PM, Rohit Vaswani wrote:
On 9/9/2013 2:25 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
<snip>
On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 12:32:22PM -0700, Rohit Vaswani wrote:
This patch adds basic board support for APQ8074 Dragonboard
<snip>
dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MSM) += msm8660-surf.dtb \
- msm8960-cdp.dtb
+ msm8960-cdp.dtb \
+ apq8074-dragonboard.dtb
Please add boards alphabetically.
Will do.
dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MVEBU) += armada-370-db.dtb \
armada-370-mirabox.dtb \
armada-370-rd.dtb \
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/apq8074-dragonboard.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/apq8074-dragonboard.dts
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5b7b6a0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/apq8074-dragonboard.dts
arch/arm/boot/dts/ is getting really crowded. It's been working best if the SoC
family or vendor is used as a prefix to keep things a bit more organized. In
that spirit, prefixing these with msm-<foo> makes sense. Can you please do so?
Sure. But the board is called an APQ8074 and we wanted to keep the naming consistent with that.
If we do this we should use qcom, not msm as the prefix. Match the device tree vendor prefix.
Coming back to this, it would be better if the naming to be consistent with what we call our ARCH - msm and not qcom.
msm8974-dragonboard signifies quite clearly what the board is.
I was saying qcom,apq8074-dragonboard or we can do the dir thing as we don't have that mean qcom/msm device trees.
- k
Sure, that's fine. If there's a consensus on the name to match the
compatible strings, could you send a patch out to rename the older
dtsi's and I can add the Dragonboard support with it.
Thanks,
Rohit Vaswani
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
