> >On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 09:02:59AM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 07:21:29AM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 07:18:00 +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote: >>>>>> Huashan Pi board is an embedded development platform based on the >>>>>> CV1812H chip. Add minimal device tree files for this board. >>>>>> Currently, it can boot to a basic shell. >>>>>> >>>>>> NOTE: this series is based on the Jisheng's Milk-V Duo patch. >>>>>> >>>>>> Link: https://en.sophgo.com/product/introduce/huashan.html >>>>>> Link: https://en.sophgo.com/product/introduce/cv181xH.html >>>>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20231006121449.721-1-jszhang@xxxxxxxxxx/ >>>>>> >>>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>> Applied to riscv-dt-for-next, thanks! LMK if something looks not as >>>>> expected. >>>>> >>>>> [1/7] dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: Add SOPHGO CV1812H plic >>>>> https://git.kernel.org/conor/c/21a34e63afcc >>>>> [2/7] dt-bindings: timer: Add SOPHGO CV1812H clint >>>>> https://git.kernel.org/conor/c/06ea2a1968a9 >>>>> [3/7] dt-bindings: riscv: Add SOPHGO Huashan Pi board compatibles >>>>> https://git.kernel.org/conor/c/d7b92027834e >>>>> [4/7] riscv: dts: sophgo: Separate compatible specific for CV1800B soc >>>>> https://git.kernel.org/conor/c/5b5dce3951b2 >>>>> [5/7] riscv: dts: sophgo: cv18xx: Add gpio devices >>>>> https://git.kernel.org/conor/c/dd791b45c866 >>>>> [6/7] riscv: dts: sophgo: add initial CV1812H SoC device tree >>>>> https://git.kernel.org/conor/c/681ec684a741 >>>>> [7/7] riscv: dts: sophgo: add Huashan Pi board device tree >>>>> https://git.kernel.org/conor/c/2c36b0cfb408 > >>>> Thanks for the confirmation. But I suggest to revert these patches. >>>> Several days ago, Sophgo informed me that CV1810 series will be >>>> renamed. And the Huashan Pi will switch to the chip with new name. >>>> To avoid unnecessary conflict, please drop these patch and I will >>>> prepare a new patch once the renamed chip is launched. >>> >>> This is a board that exists, that you (and possibly others) have, right? >>> >> >> Yes, of course. > >I dunno then. It sounds from your message that this is purely a rebrand >of the SoCs, IIRC, it is. FYI, Chen and Chao. Maybe you know something more. >so since people already have these boards, I'd rather not. >We should be able to support both since it's just a naming change, >right? I agree with this. If the above is true, we can just reuse the exists code with a different compatible name, right?
