On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 at 01:14, Zev Weiss <zev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 02:59:28AM PST, Joel Stanley wrote: > >On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 at 23:10, Zev Weiss <zev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> This is a half-width, single-socket Epyc server board with an AST2500 > >> BMC. This device tree is sufficient for basic OpenBMC functionality, > >> but we'll need to add a few more devices (as driver support becomes > >> available) before it's fully usable. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Zev Weiss <zev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > >Reviewed-by: Joel Stanley <joel@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Thanks! I've merged this for v5.18. > > >Have you considered using the openbmc gpio naming scheme for the > >gpio-line-names? > > > > I looked at it, but decided not to for a few reasons: > > - For systems that are in the early stages of a porting effort (like > this one currently is), I'm still referring to hardware schematics > fairly often, and using the same identifiers in software that are > used in the schematics simplifies things by avoiding an extra > translation step between the two. > > - Most of the GPIO-related userspace components (that I'm dealing with > anyway, e.g. x86-power-control and host-error-monitor) already have > their own GPIO line-name configuration/remapping mechanisms that need > to be set up anyway. > > - There's a solid mix of GPIOs that would be covered by the naming > guidelines and others that aren't; having a mix of the two styles > seems a bit awkward to me. > > That said, I sympathize with the motivation behind it and I'm not > vehemently opposed on the whole, so if there's a strong preference to > follow that scheme I could probably be talked into changing it. > > > Zev >
