Am 28.03.24 um 10:41 schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski: > 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. Great. So perhaps my next step will be a v2 with explanations. > >>> 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. First priority is supporting the solidrun boards based on cn9130 soc, which requires getting the bindings right (at least for these boards). Changing the other bindings would only satisfy my desire for order, but could get attention from other contributors to these platforms.
