On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 at 05:20, Tao Ren <taoren@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On 8/1/19, 9:21 PM, "Joel Stanley" <joel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 at 04:10, Tao Ren <taoren@xxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Add initial version of device tree for Facebook Wedge100 AST2400 BMC > >> platform. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Tao Ren <taoren@xxxxxx> > >> Reviewed-by: Andrew Jeffery <andrew@xxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> Changes in v2: > >> - remove "debug" from bootargs. > > > > Thanks. I applied wedge40 and then this one fails to apply due to > > conflicts in the Makefile. Next time you have two patches, send them > > as a series they apply one atop the other. > > I thought about asking you if I should send them as a series although they are logically independent patches.. > Sorry about that and I will do so for future patches. > > > The naming of these two files suggests they come from a family. I > > noticed there's very minor differences, a pca9548 switch and the use > > of a watchdog. > > > > Are these device trees complete? If yes, do you think it's worthwhile > > to have a common wedge description in eg. > > aspeed-bmc-facebook-wedge.dtsi, and put the unique description in > > respective dts board files? > > > > The upside of this is reduced duplication. > > > > If you have a reason not to, then that is okay and we can leave it as > > you submitted them. > > Thank you for the suggestion. I'm also considering moving common stuff into "dtsi" file, but let me take care of it in a separate patch, mainly because: > 1) I have one more BMC platform (galaxy100) which is also similar to wedge. > I haven't started the platform, but once I have galaxy100 device tree ready, it would be easier for me to extract common part. > 2) the device tree is not complete yet. > For example, all the i2c devices are still created from userspace. > I'm trying to move the logic from userspace to device tree but I haven't decided what to do with those cpld/fpga devices. Okay, thanks. I've applied both of these to the aspeed tree for 5.4. Cheers, Joel
