Hi Andreas,
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 22:54, Andreas Färber <afaerber@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> BTW I think the subject convention has been "ARM: dts: ...", with "ARM:
> mstar: ..." more for mach-mstar.
I noticed this after sending out this series. I've fixed up the
subjects in line with convention for the next try.
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/mercury5-ssc8336n-midrive08.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/mercury5-ssc8336n-midrive08.dts
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..4ee50ecf6ab1
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/mercury5-ssc8336n-midrive08.dts
> > @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +/*
> > + * Copyright (c) 2019 thingy.jp.
> > + * Author: Daniel Palmer <daniel@xxxxxxxxx>
> > + */
> > +
> > +/dts-v1/;
> > +#include "mercury5-ssc8336n.dtsi"
> > +
> > +/ {
> > + model = "midrive d08";
>
> Couldn't find this on their website. Should this be "70mai midrive ..."
> or is "midrive" a different brand?
I think it should be 70mai Midrive D08 based on your comments on the
other model names.
On their site this camera is now called "Dash Cam Lite".
Midrive D08 is the name I bought it under and the name that was used
for it's FCC approval (https://fccid.io/2AOK9-MIDRIVED08) so that's
what I went
with.
> > + compatible = "70mai,midrived08", "mstar,mercury5";
>
> Have you considered naming it "70mai,midrive-d08" for better
> readability? (affects 1/5)
I went with midrived08 as that's what was used for the FCC and from
what I remember was written on the casing.
Thanks,
Daniel
