On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 09:27 +0200, Frank Wunderlich wrote: > or should we split dtsi to have a common part (mt7623.dtsi), and one for > soc (mt7623n.dtsi/mt7623a.dtsi)? > > mt7623.dtsi => mt7623n.dtsi => mt7623n-bananapi-bpi-r2.dts > mt7623.dtsi => mt7623a.dtsi => mt7623a-unielec-u7623.dts (not existing yet, > openwrt seems to use a board-specific dtsi) Yes, I think we should. I'll create mt7623a.dtsi and upstream the U7623 support; I think that can happen without conflicting with anything you do. I note that the GPU node has been added to mt7623.dtsi in 5.8 too; that'll want to move to the new mt7623n.dtsi that you create, along with your other new additions. Does that seem reasonable?
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
