On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 11:11:37 AM UTC-4, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > Try to wrap lines to 80 characters or less. Ok ! I will be more careful ... > 1 change per patch. You are making 3 changes here. a) adding shared > pinmux settings, > b & c) enabling uarts and i2c busses for 2 boards. > > You could split them into 1 dtsi patch adding the pinmux setting, and > then 1 for each > board enabling the peripherals. Fine ! I will prepare and redo a new submit with only the DTSI for now. > Perhaps they were enabled before the policy was enacted, or it just > slipped through. I > contributed to a few. But for many boards we might not have schematics > or the actual > device to check. Understood ! But sometimes things are so generic, like having uart0 and not having uart1 make it looks a bit strange. Some other times having some i2c2 because of PMIC while not having i2c0 and i2c1 is also strange. > How would you determine what the most common usage is for "development boards"? > If the vendor explicitly designed the pins to be used one way, and even printed > the description on the board, then you may have a valid argument. But even then, > with the C.H.I.P., they are going with DT overlays. > > It shouldn't be hard for an end user to modify the DT. And with I2C devices, it > is almost a requirement. Ok ! I will look if it is easier to do the rest with overlays.
