> 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. hi Vladimir, if don't specify "/delete-property/" in this dts file, the corresponding dtb will not work well, so I add it to delete 'ethernet' property from mscc_felix_port4 explicitly. thanks, hongbo
