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
