Am 25.03.24 um 20:34 schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski: > On 22/03/2024 11:08, Josua Mayer wrote: >> Am 21.03.24 um 22:47 schrieb Josua Mayer: >>> Add bindings for SolidRun Clearfog boards, using a new SoM based on >>> CN9130 SoC. >>> The carrier boards are identical to the older Armada 388 based Clearfog >>> boards. For consistency the carrier part of compatible strings are >>> copied, including the established "-a1" suffix. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Josua Mayer <josua@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> .../devicetree/bindings/arm/marvell/armada-7k-8k.yaml | 12 ++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/marvell/armada-7k-8k.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/marvell/armada-7k-8k.yaml >>> index 16d2e132d3d1..36bdfd1bedd9 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/marvell/armada-7k-8k.yaml >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/marvell/armada-7k-8k.yaml >>> @@ -82,4 +82,16 @@ properties: >>> - const: marvell,armada-ap807-quad >>> - const: marvell,armada-ap807 >>> >>> + - description: >>> + SolidRun CN9130 clearfog family single-board computers >>> + items: >>> + - enum: >>> + - solidrun,clearfog-base-a1 >>> + - solidrun,clearfog-pro-a1 >>> + - const: solidrun,clearfog-a1 >>> + - const: solidrun,cn9130-sr-som >>> + - const: marvell,cn9130 >>> + - const: marvell,armada-ap807-quad >>> + - const: marvell,armada-ap807 >>> + >>> additionalProperties: true >> Before merging I would like some feedback about adding >> another product later, to ensure the compatibles above >> are adequate? In particular: >> - sequence of soc, cp, carrier compatibles >> - name of som compatible >> >> Draft for future bindings: >> - description: >> SolidRun CN9130 SoM based single-board computers >> with 1 external CP on the Carrier. >> items: >> - enum: >> - solidrun,cn9131-solidwan >> - const: marvell,cn9131 >> - const: solidrun,cn9130-sr-som > This does not look correct. cn9131 is not compatible with your som. This is partially my question. I considered changing the som to "cn913x-sr-som". The SoM itself is always 9130, it contains the base SoC with 1x AP and 1x CP in a single chip. 9131 and 9132 <happen> on the carrier boards. > >> - const: marvell,cn9130 > SoCs are compatible only in some cases, e.g. one is a subset of another > like stripped out of modem. Are you sure this is your case? This is more complex, CN9131 and CN9132 are not single SoCs. A "9132" is instantiated by connecting two southbridge chips via a Marvell defined bus, each providing additional IO such as network, i2c, gpio. Note that even the first, "9130", while a single chip, contains two dies: An "AP" (Application Processor I assume) with very limited IO (1xsdio, 1xi2c), and a "CP" (Communication Processor I assume) with lots of IO. This CP as far as I know today is identical to the southbridges mentioned above. >> - const: marvell,armada-ap807-quad >> - const: marvell,armada-ap807 > Anyway, 6 compatibles is beyond useful amount. What are you expressing > here? I copied this part from the examples earlier in the file, such as: - description: Armada CN9132 SoC with two external CPs items: - const: marvell,cn9132 - const: marvell,cn9131 - const: marvell,cn9130 - const: marvell,armada-ap807-quad - const: marvell,armada-ap807 > Why is this even armada ap807? We noticed ap807 != ap806 (cn913x != 8040), because the thermal sensor coefficients converting raw values to celsius differed.
