On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 01:56:53PM +0000, Hongbo Wang wrote: > > You will end up with two DT blobs with the same top level compatible. This is > > going to cause confusion. I suggest you add an additional top level compatible > > to make it clear this differs from the compatible = "fsl,ls1028a-rdb", > > "fsl,ls1028a" blob. > > > > Andrew > > hi Andrew, > > thanks for comments. > > this "fsl-ls1028a-rdb-dsa-swp5-eno3.dts" is also for fsl-ls1028a-rdb platform, > the only difference with "fsl-ls1028a-rdb.dts" is that it use swp5 as dsa master, not swp4, > and it's based on "fsl-ls1028a-rdb.dts", so I choose this manner, > if "fsl-ls1028a-rdb.dts" has some modification for new version, this file don't need be changed. I tend to agree with Hongbo. What confusion is it going to cause? It is fundamentally the same board, just an Ethernet port stopped having 'status = "disabled"' and another changed role, all inside of the SoC with no externally-visible change. If anything, I think that creating a new top-level compatible for each small change like this would create a bloat-fest of its own. I was going to suggest as an alternative to define a device tree overlay file with the changes in the CPU port assignment, instead of defining a wholly new DTS for the LS1028A reference design board. But I am pretty sure that it is not possible to specify a /delete-property/ inside a device tree overlay file, so that won't actually work.
