On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 08:50:26AM +0200, Francesco Dolcini wrote: > Hello Frank, > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 03:46:38PM -0400, Frank Li wrote: > > Add i.MX8QM audio related nodes and update eDMA[0,1]'s information. > > > > Signed-off-by: Frank Li <Frank.Li@xxxxxxx> > > --- > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8qm-ss-audio.dtsi | 473 +++++++++++++++++++++ > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8qm.dtsi | 86 ++++ > > 2 files changed, 559 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8qm-ss-audio.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8qm-ss-audio.dtsi > > new file mode 100644 > > index 0000000000000..ed5a1b4af1d76 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8qm-ss-audio.dtsi > > @@ -0,0 +1,473 @@ > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ > > OR MIT? All other qm related dtsi is only license GPLv2. If add Or MIT, it need re-license whole include tree files, which out of scope of this patch. I feel like to keep consistent with other files. > > Normally for device tree files having both is preferred. > > > +/* > > + * Copyright 2024 NXP > > + * Dong Aisheng <aisheng.dong@xxxxxxx> > > + */ > > + > > +/delete-node/ &acm; > > +/delete-node/ &sai4; > > +/delete-node/ &sai5; > > +/delete-node/ &sai4_lpcg; > > +/delete-node/ &sai5_lpcg; > > Can you explain these delete-node ? This is something that I would > expect when a dtsi is previously included, not in this case. We want to avoid some property inherent from parent dtsi file because it is big difference with common one. This node will be rewrite totally in this files. > > Francesco >
