+ linux-actions
Am 20.03.20 um 04:51 schrieb Matheus Castello:
Update the documentation to add the Caninos Loucos Labrador. Labrador
project consists of a computer on module based on the Actions Semi S500
processor and the Labrador base board.
Signed-off-by: Matheus Castello <matheus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/actions.yaml | 5 +++++
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/actions.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/actions.yaml
index ace3fdaa8396..1b131ceb884a 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/actions.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/actions.yaml
@@ -24,6 +24,11 @@ properties:
- lemaker,guitar-bb-rev-b # LeMaker Guitar Base Board rev. B
- const: lemaker,guitar
- const: actions,s500
+ - items:
+ - enum:
+ - caninos,labrador-bb # Caninos Loucos Labrador Base Board
+ - const: caninos,labrador
+ - const: actions,s500
# The Actions Semi S700 is a quad-core ARM Cortex-A53 SoC.
- items:
Now that you chose to stick with caninos rather than lsi prefix, the
sort order compared to lemaker remains wrong.
Looking at https://caninosloucos.org/en/labrador-en/ there's a "CORE
BOARD V2.0" and a "BASE BOARD M V1.0".
Assuming the v2 is not software-relevant, shouldn't the M be reflected
in the compatible string? For example, "caninos,labrador-core" and
"caninos,labrador-m"? You're free to use -bb-m of course, but no need to
copy LeMaker -bb naming for your board. What does your PCB say?
Also note that other recent bindings have been using a description
attribute - not sure whether we can apply that a) to the SoM and b) to
the base board here. Please compare other in-tree bindings.
Regards,
Andreas
--
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH
Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imendörffer
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg)
