Am Mittwoch, 4. Dezember 2019, 20:32:40 CET schrieb Rob Herring:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 07:44:41PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
> > VMARC RK3399Pro SOM is a standard SMARC SOM design with
> > Rockchip RK3399Pro SoC, which is designed by Vamrs.
> >
> > Since it is a standard SMARC design, it can be easily
> > mounted on the supporting Carrier board. Radxa has
> > suitable carrier board to mount and use it as a final
> > version board.
> >
> > Add dt-bindings for it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jagan Teki <jagan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Changes for v2:
> > - none
> >
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml | 5 +++++
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
> > index 45728fd22af8..51aa458833a9 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
> > @@ -526,4 +526,9 @@ properties:
> > items:
> > - const: tronsmart,orion-r68-meta
> > - const: rockchip,rk3368
> > +
> > + - description: Vamrs VMARC RK3399Pro SOM
> > + items:
> > + - const: vamrs,rk3399pro-vmarc-som
>
> Why do you need this? You just override it in your dts files, so it is
> not really used. Perhaps the top-level should have all 3 compatibles? If
> so, then the schemas are wrong.
In the past we had SOMs that _could_ function alone, but looking at the
announcement for this one [0] suggests that the SOM always needs a carrier
board, so I don't think the SOM actually needs a separate entry but instead
should be part of the carrier-board compatible list, as Rob suggested.
So I guess we should only have (from patch 3):
- description: Radxa ROCK Pi N10
items:
- const: radxa,rockpi-n10
- const: vamrs,rk3399pro-vmarc-som
- const: rockchip,rk3399pro
Heiko
[0] https://www.96rocks.com/blog/2019/09/11/introduce-vamrc-rk3399pro-som-and-ficus2-carrier-board/
