On 7/20/2023 3:18 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
On 20.07.2023 10:49, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 20/07/2023 10:45, Sridharan S N wrote:
Document the below listed (Reference Design Platform) RDP boards based on IPQ9574
family of SoCs.
AL02-C3 - rdp437
AL02-C7 - rdp433-mht-phy
AL02-C10 - rdp433-mht-switch
AL02-C11 - rdp467
AL02-C12 - rdp455
AL02-C13 - rdp459
AL02-C15 - rdp457
AL02-C16 - rdp456
AL02-C17 - rdp469
AL02-C19 - rdp461
AL03-C2 - rdp458
Signed-off-by: Sridharan S N <quic_sridsn@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
.../devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 20 +++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
index dd66fd872c31..d992261da691 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
@@ -89,10 +89,20 @@ description: |
adp
ap-al01-c1
ap-al02-c2
+ ap-al02-c3
ap-al02-c6
ap-al02-c7
ap-al02-c8
ap-al02-c9
+ ap-al02-c10
+ ap-al02-c11
+ ap-al02-c12
+ ap-al02-c13
+ ap-al02-c15
+ ap-al02-c16
+ ap-al02-c17
+ ap-al02-c19
Why? I asked once, but there was no feedback from Qualcomm.
Why do we need to do this? What's the point?
Another question would be, whether these boards are just one-off test
prototypes of which there exist like 5-10 units, or are they actually
going to be supported and useful.
If it's the former, I don't think it makes sense to keep the device
trees upstream.
Konrad
These are all not test rdps and each rdps has its own configurations.
IPQ9574 has four pcie instances and one QDSP processor. Not all rdps use
all of the interfaces and it will vary for each rdp. In next version ,
will post with each rdp's configuration explicitly
Thanks,
Sridharan
