On 02/11/2022 15:41, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 16:56-20221102, Wadim Egorov wrote:
> [...]
>
>>>> +
>>>> +#include <dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h>
>>>> +#include <dt-bindings/leds/common.h>
>>>> +#include <dt-bindings/net/ti-dp83867.h>
>>>> +
>>>> +/ {
>>>> + model = "PHYTEC phyCORE-AM64x";
>>>> + compatible = "phytec,am64-phycore-som";
>>> Does this match the binding?
>>
>> Not very sure about the compatible I should chose here. It is probably not very
>> important since the compatible gets overridden by the carrier which specifies
>> the am642 SoC.
>> Seems like the TI SoMs (k3-j7*som*.dtsi) do not add a compatible at all.
>>
>> Or do you think we should add the "ti,am642" compatible here?
>
> If the compatible of SoM makes much sense as a standalone OR usable
> elsewhere, then it could be an enum option to allow for som, soC as a
> valid combination.
>
> On the other hand, simplistically, it does look like SoM (like the j7es
> processor board) serves no specific purpose standalone, in which case
> skipping it is more appropriate.
The compatible from patch is clearly wrong - you cannot have such
compatible alone.
Whether having there compatible at all, is a different question...
Best regards,
Krzysztof
