Hello, On 10/1/20 12:37 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> The existing binding doesn't cover these boards then and needs to be >> extended, no? How about following patch? > > What do you mean it doesn't cover? It was added exactly to handle them: > + - technexion,imx6q-pico-dwarf # TechNexion i.MX6Q Pico-Dwarf > + - technexion,imx6q-pico-hobbit # TechNexion i.MX6Q Pico-Hobbit > + - technexion,imx6q-pico-nymph # TechNexion i.MX6Q Pico-Nymph > + - technexion,imx6q-pico-pi # TechNexion i.MX6Q Pico-Pi > Still they are unused. So I'd think these boards should be handled like boards that predated bindings: a binding is written that doesn't break existing users. >> [I guess we need to keep the two-compatible list they were originally >> in for compatibility even if it's unused among upstream device trees?] > > You want to change both the binding (thus breaking the ABI) and update > the DTS to reflect new ABI. Then why having a binding at all? If we leave the old two-compatible enumeration intact, there is no ABI broken. > I would assume that either binding is correct or DTS. You propose that > both are wrong and both need changes... in such case this is clearly > broken. IMO the DTS is the correct one. If you want to honor the author's intention that each base board has a different compatible, it should be an extra compatible and not replace the existing one that may be already in use. Cheers Ahmad > > Best regards, > Krzysztof > -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
