On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 10:49 +0200, Frank Wunderlich wrote: > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 05. August 2020 um 10:36 Uhr > > Von: "David Woodhouse" <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > 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 want to see what MTK/DT owner says to this... > my current way will be still adding the nodes to existing mt7623.dtsi > (like ryder lee did it in original patch) > but disabling them to not break mt7623a and splitting it afterwards. > > > 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. > > i guess mali-node also needs to be moved to mt7623n.dtsi, so my > current way seems right... > but it's decision of MTK/DT owner. if they make a note i squash the > disabling-commit into this and post v5 Yes, the mali node needs moving too. I've pushed an untested series to http://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/linux.git/shortlog/refs/heads/mt7623 which does that and adds the UniElec board.
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
