On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 04:07:07PM +0100, Paul Kocialkowski wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue 14 Nov 23, 17:51, Conor Dooley wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 05:54:08PM +0100, Paul Kocialkowski wrote: > > > > > > Ultimately, I don't care what the file ends up being called when there > > > > are multiple devices documented in it. I'd ack a patch renaming to the > > > > œriginal incarnation of the IP when the documentation for that IP is > > > > added without a second thought. > > > > > > That would be agreeable to me if my proposal still ends up feeling unreasonable > > > to you. But I might very well take you at your word since I ended up purchasing > > > a RK3066 board in a moment of weakness last week. > > > > The ideal outcome I suppose would be documenting both variants. If > > you've gone ahead and bought one, give that a go. > > Yeah I'll try to do that eventually, but we really want to have this series > merged as soon as possible. So it wouldn't be reasonable for us to wait for > RK3066 support. > > What's your final decision for now: is it okay to keep the file named > rockchip,rk3066-cif.yaml (without this compatible in the file) or do you still > want it called rockchip,px30-vip.yaml? I'd still rather it was called after the only compatible in the file and subsequently renamed, sorry.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
