On Tue 25 Jan 15:46 PST 2022, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 2:58 PM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Quoting Douglas Anderson (2022-01-25 14:44:22)
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280-herobrine-herobrine-r1.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280-herobrine-herobrine-r1.dts
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000000..f95273052da0
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280-herobrine-herobrine-r1.dts
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,313 @@
> > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT)
> > > +/*
> > > + * Google Herobrine board device tree source
> > > + *
> > > + * Copyright 2022 Google LLC.
> > > + */
> > > +
> > > +/dts-v1/;
> > > +
> > > +#include "sc7280-herobrine.dtsi"
> > > +
> > > +/ {
> > > + model = "Google Herobrine (rev1+)";
> > > + compatible = "google,herobrine", "qcom,sc7280";
> >
> > Can we stop adding "qcom,sc7280" to the board compatible string? It
> > looks out of place. It's the compatible for the SoC and should really be
> > the compatible for the /soc node.
>
> I don't have any objections, but I feel like this is the type of thing
> I'd like Bjorn to have the final say on. What say you, Bjorn?
>
One practical case I can think of right away, where this matters is in
cpufreq-dt-plat.c where we blocklist qcom,sc7280.
I don't know if we rely on this in any other places, but I'm not keen on
seeing a bunch of board-specific compatibles sprinkled throughout the
implementation - it's annoying enough having to add each platform to
these drivers.
Regards,
Bjorn
>
> > > + pp3300_left_in_mlb: pp3300-left-in-mlb {
> >
> > Sometimes '-regulator' is left out. Is that intentional? I suppose it
> > would be better if every node had regulator postfix, but it may be too
> > long of a node name?
>
> Huh, you're right. No, it's not intentional. It looks like it was that
> way on herobrine-rev0 too... It also looks like it's missing on
> "pp3300-hub" on trogdor.
>
> Happy to add "-regulator" in the herobrine / trogdor nodes that need
> it. I'll probably do it as a follow-on patch if that works OK? Then I
> can just clean them all up at once...
>
> -Doug
