Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: arm: sunxi: document Anbernic RG35XX handheld gaming device variants

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 17/04/2024 15:58, Andre Przywara wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 15:33:13 +0200
> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> On 17/04/2024 11:05, Ryan Walklin wrote:
>>> Thanks for the review and feedback.
>>>   
>>>> Any reason these are not just one enum with three entires?  
>>>
>>> No, this is just to match the existing devices, are you able to point to an example elsewhere?
>>>   
>>
>> Even for variants of same boards?
>>
>> The examples are everywhere, e.g. Qualcomm or NXP.
> 
> We have separate entries for closely related boards (Pine64 H64 model A
> and B), and also indeed for updated variants (the various PinePhone
> revisions).
> That doesn't need the stay this way, of course. We would lose a quite
> natural way of putting a descriptive name to each compatible string (cf.
> "Pine64 PinePhone Developer Batch (1.0)"), but if the main purpose of this
> file is to *reserve* the compatible strings, it would indeed be shorter to
> use enums for related boards.
> Don't know if this would a real advantage, though.
> 

If this matches your existing practice, then it is perfectly fine for
me. I will probably still be bringing up this question from time to
time, because for me it blows the binding unnecessarily making it harder
to maintain/read, but that's only matter of taste.

Best regards,
Krzysztof





[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]


  Powered by Linux