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 <robin.murphy@xxxxxxx>
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.
