Hi, i rebased changes to 5.9-rc1 [1] and include parts from Davids Series in my one. David: is it ok to squash your mali-commit with mine moving the other display-related nodes and use me as author? CK Hu/Matthias/Ryder/Sean: is the structure of DTS ok now? regards Frank [1] https://github.com/frank-w/BPI-R2-4.14/commits/5.9-hdmi > Gesendet: Montag, 10. August 2020 um 09:48 Uhr > Von: "David Woodhouse" <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Betreff: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm: dts: mt7623: move more display-related nodes to mt7623n.dtsi > > On Sun, 2020-08-09 at 08:16 +0800, Chun-Kuang Hu wrote: > > I would like to put all device in mt7623.dtsi with some device's > > status is "disabled" and change its status in platform dtsi. > > I would like to see all device in mt7623.dtsi because of its name. If > > you move some device to platform dtsi, we would trace all platform > > dtsi to find out how many device in mt7623. One day a new platform > > enable different devices, you would reorganize all these platform > > dtsi? > > No, this isn't "platform dtsi", surely? This is mt7623a and mt7623n > dtsi for the two different SoCs, and platforms then just include > mt7623a.dtsi or mt7623n.dtsi as appropriate for the SoC they are using. > > If you really want *all* the nodes for both MT7623A and MT7623N chips > in a single mt7623.dtsi but disabled, could we still have mt7623a.dtsi > and mt7623n.dtsi for the chips, enabling the nodes that are only-for-A > or only-for-N, so that each platform doesn't have to do that for > itself? > > Although putting those nodes that exist only in one chip or the other > directly into the mt7623[an].dtsi still seems to make more sense to > me.
