Am Dienstag, 16. Januar 2024, 20:26:05 CET schrieb Rob Herring: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 09:31:35AM +0100, Heiko Stübner wrote: > > Am Dienstag, 16. Januar 2024, 08:24:44 CET schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski: > > > On 16/01/2024 03:00, Tim Lunn wrote: > > > > > > > > On 1/16/24 01:58, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > >> On 15/01/2024 15:51, KyuHyuk Lee wrote: > > > >>> The vendor in ODROID-M1 is hardkernel, but it was incorrectly written > > > >>> as rockchip. Fixed the vendor prefix correctly. > > > >>> > > > >>> Signed-off-by: KyuHyuk Lee <lee@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > >>> --- > > > >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml | 2 +- > > > >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > >> You need to start testing your patches. Your last M1 fails as well in > > > >> multiple places. > > > >> > > > >> It does not look like you tested the DTS against bindings. Please run > > > >> `make dtbs_check W=1` (see > > > >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-schema.rst or > > > >> https://www.linaro.org/blog/tips-and-tricks-for-validating-devicetree-sources-with-the-devicetree-schema/ > > > >> for instructions). > > > >> > > > >> The DTS change will break the users, so would be nice to mention this in > > > >> its commit msg. > > > > > > > > I notice there are a couple of other boards that incorrectly use > > > > rockchip as the vendor also: > > > > > > > > - const: rockchip,rk3399-orangepi > > > > - const: rockchip,rk3568-bpi-r2pro > > > > > > > > Perhaps these should also be fixed at the same time? > > > > > > What is happening with rockchip boards? > > > > Copy-paste stuff ... boards using rockchip,boardname instead of > > vendor,boardname for their compatible. > > > > I do remember us noticing this a number of times on some boards > > and requesting fixes, but looks like some slipped through. > > > > So I guess Tim is suggesting changing the compatible, but with boards > > being merged a while ago, this would break backwards compatibility. > > So I guess both the Orange and Banana Pies will need to live with that. > > You may get away with it because we generally don't use the names... > > Though there are some discussions to start using them to select dtbs by > bootloaders. Ah, that's good to know (both points) ... so essentially right now would be a good time to do what Tim suggested, before the names get actual usage. @Tim: is that something you'd want to do? Thanks Heiko
