On 28/03/2024 10:33, Josua Mayer wrote: >> >>> 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. I did not know to what you refer. >> >> 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 With an explanation in commit msg about not using other compatible fallbacks, this looks good to me. > >> 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? It all depends on "what" and "why" you want to do. I don't know. Best regards, Krzysztof
