On 25/06/2021 10:59, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 11:52 AM Matthew Hagan <mnhagan88@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> MX64 & MX64W Hardware info: >> - CPU: Broadcom BCM58625 Cortex A9 @ 1200Mhz >> - RAM: 2 GB (4 x 4Gb SK Hynix H5TC4G83CFR) >> - Storage: 1 GB (Micron MT29F8G08ABACA) >> - Networking: BCM58625 internal switch (5x 1GbE ports) >> - USB: 1x USB2.0 >> - Serial: Internal header >> - WLAN(MX64W only): 2x Broadcom BCM43520KMLG on the PCI bus >> >> This patch adds the Meraki MX64 series-specific bindings. Since some >> devices make use of the older A0 SoC, changes need to be made to >> accommodate this case, including removal of coherency options and >> modification to the secondary-boot-reg. >> >> Signed-off-by: Matthew Hagan <mnhagan88@xxxxxxxxx> > Removing the dma-coherent flags in the dts file seemed really odd until > I read the text above. It would seem more logical to me to have a .dtsi file > that has all the a0 revision specific changes, and include that from the > dts file. How about having separate bcm-nsp-ax and bcm-nsp-bx dtsi files with the appropriate secondary-boot-reg and dma-coherent (or lack of) properties, which then include bcm-nsp.dtsi. Thus we can also avoid use of /delete-property/. Would this be preferable? > > On the other hand, the /chosen, /aliases and /memory nodes that you have > in the .dtsi file should probably get moved into the .dts files, as these tend > to be board specific settings, even if the examples you have are all > the same. I did not come across any convention regarding this, though there are plenty of cases where the /chosen, /aliases and /memory nodes are defined in a .dtsi file and used by multiple similar boards. Also note in this case /aliases is defined in bcm-nsp.dtsi, not by me. Would we not prefer to avoid having 6x duplication? > Arnd > Matthew
