On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 11:34 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 24/05/2024 20:40, Conor Dooley wrote: > > On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 04:04:50PM -0700, Tim Harvey wrote: > >> On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 7:47 AM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 09:02:46AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>>> On 22/05/2024 23:50, Tim Harvey wrote: > >>>>> The GW7905 was renamed to GW7500 before production release. > >>>>> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Tim Harvey <tharvey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>> --- > >>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml | 4 ++-- > >>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >>>>> > >>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml > >>>>> index 0027201e19f8..d8bc295079e3 100644 > >>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml > >>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml > >>>>> @@ -920,8 +920,8 @@ properties: > >>>>> - fsl,imx8mm-ddr4-evk # i.MX8MM DDR4 EVK Board > >>>>> - fsl,imx8mm-evk # i.MX8MM EVK Board > >>>>> - fsl,imx8mm-evkb # i.MX8MM EVKB Board > >>>>> + - gateworks,imx8mm-gw75xx-0x # i.MX8MM Gateworks Board > >>>> > >>>> That's not even equivalent. You 7500 != 75xx. > >>>> > >>> > >>>>> - gateworks,imx8mm-gw7904 > >>>>> - - gateworks,imx8mm-gw7905-0x # i.MX8MM Gateworks Board > >>>> > >>>> Compatibles do not change. It's just a string. Fixed string. > >>> > >>> I think there's justification here for removing it, per the commit > >>> message, the rename happened before the device was available to > >>> customers. > >>> Additionally, I think we can give people that upstream things before they're > >>> publicly available a bit of slack, otherwise we're just discouraging > >>> people from upstreaming early. > >> > >> Hi Conor, > >> > >> Thanks for understanding - that's exactly what happened. I'm in the > >> habit of submitting patches early and often and it's no fun when > >> something like a silly product name gets changed and breaks all the > >> hard work. > >> > >> The board model number is stored in an EEPROM at manufacturing time > >> and that EEPROM model is used to build a dt name. So instead of GW7905 > >> which would be a one-off custom design it was decided to change the > >> product to a GW75xx. The difference between GW7500 and GW75xx is > >> because we subload components on boards between GW7500/GW7501/GW7502 > >> etc but the dt is the same. > >> > >> If there is resistance to a patch that renames it then I guess I'll > >> have to submit a patch that removes the obsolete board, then adds back > >> the same board under a different name. Shall I do that? > > > > I think this patch is fine - other than the inconsistency that Krzysztof > > pointed out between the "renamed to gw7500" and the "gw75xx" in the new > > compatible. > > I am not a fan of renaming compatibles because of marketing change, > because compatible does not have to reflect the marketing name, but > there was already precedent from Qualcomm which I did not nak, so fine > here as well. Double wildcard 75xx is however a bit worrying. > Hi Krzysztof, Thanks for understanding. The double-wildcard is again a marketing tool. All GW75** use the same device-tree by design. The boot firmware that chooses the device-tree understands this and for a GW7521 for example would look for gw7521 first, gw752x next, gw75xx last. Best Regards, Tim
