Hi Krzysztof, Thank you for all the comments so far! Am 28.03.24 um 10:14 schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski: > On 27/03/2024 11:55, Josua Mayer wrote: > >>> I don't even understand what is your case. >> I see :( >> Yes there is a disconnect *somewhere*. >> > Your way of quoting, including removing blank lines, weird wrapping, > does not make it easy to answer anything here. Use decent email client > which solves all these problems. > >> I shall try again: >> Marvell is selling two chips: >> 1. CN9130, High-Performance Multi-Core CPU, System on Chip >> (can be used alone) > So this is the main SoC? Correct. > >> 2. 88F8215, SouthBridge Communication Processor, System on Chip >> (only usable in combination with a CN9130) >> >> Now, in terms of compatible string, what happens when a board >> has multiples of these? > Multiple of CN9130? 2x CN9130? this specifically is an academic question, the main point is multiple southbridges to one CN9130. > Nothing happens, does not really matter. > Anyway the compatible is just to uniquely identify the device for users, > not represent some programming model, because there is no programming > model of a board. > >>> What is 9131 and 9132? >> I have no idea who came up with 9131 and 9132. >> But explanation is given by Grzegorz Jaszczyk <jaz@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> when he submitted cn9131-db.dts (Marvell evaluation board): >> >> Extend the support of the CN9130 by adding an external CP115. >> The last number indicates how many external CP115 are used. > You use the compatibles in your patchset, so you should know, not me.I > have zero knowledge, also actually almost zero interest, in learning > your particular platform. Fair enough. > I tried to fixup some bindings and maintainers > for Marvell: failed with not really helpful comments. Therefore I don't > care anymore about Marvell. > > You <cut> should know what is this about and come > with explanation to the community. If I was to come up with something new, without looking at existing Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/marvell/armada-7k-8k.yaml I would describe the hardware like this: SolidRun "CN9131" SolidWAN board is comptible with: - solidrun,cn9131-solidwan: name of the carrier board, and name of the complete product includes one southbridge chip, but I don't need to mention it? - solidrun,cn9130-sr-som: just the som, including 1x CN9130 SoC - marvell,cn9130: this is the SoC, internally combining AP+CP AP *could* be mentioned, but I don't see a reason > You<cut>r platform maintainers should know what is this about and come > with explanation to the community. Is there a way forward? Would it be worth challenging the existing bindings by proposing (RFC) specific changes in line with what I described above? sincerely Josua Mayer
