On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 01:30:45PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 11:26:14AM GMT, Andre Przywara wrote: > > On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 13:53:38 -0500 > > Chris Morgan <macroalpha82@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > From: Chris Morgan <macromorgan@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Add the Anbernic RG35XXSP variant device and consolidate the Anbernic > > > H700 devices. > > > > > > The Anbernic RG35XXSP is almost identical to the RG35XX-Plus, but in a > > > clamshell form-factor. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Morgan <macromorgan@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > .../devicetree/bindings/arm/sunxi.yaml | 24 +++++++------------ > > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/sunxi.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/sunxi.yaml > > > index c2a158b75e49..1ae77e5edf9a 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/sunxi.yaml > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/sunxi.yaml > > > @@ -51,25 +51,19 @@ properties: > > > - const: allwinner,parrot > > > - const: allwinner,sun8i-a33 > > > > > > - - description: Anbernic RG-Nano > > > - items: > > > - - const: anbernic,rg-nano > > > - - const: allwinner,sun8i-v3s > > > - > > > - - description: Anbernic RG35XX (2024) > > > - items: > > > - - const: anbernic,rg35xx-2024 > > > - - const: allwinner,sun50i-h700 > > > - > > > - - description: Anbernic RG35XX Plus > > > + - description: Anbernic H700 Handheld Gaming Console > > > > So that's certainly an interesting optimisation, but so far we were using > > one entry per device, it seems. > > I am not entirely sure what the purpose of this file is, exactly: just to > > document the compatible names > > That was the initial intent, yes. > > > to reserve them and avoid clashes in the future? > > And I guess it helps with that too :) > > > Or also to put some official names to each device? That seems to > > somewhat overlap with the root node's model property in the respective > > device .dts, though. > > I guess it's a fair criticism. It would be hard to collect all the > compatibles without describing which device they belong too though. So > yeah, there's some redundancy, but removing the descriptions entirely > would be worse imo. > > > It would be good to clarify this, and establish how to group those devices. > > I mean technically we could for instance put *all* H6 devices into one > > entry, using the same scheme as below. > > Not sure that's desired, though. > > I don't really have a say there anymore, but I always tend to prefer > consistency in documentation as a user. Even more so since that kind of > categorization tends to be very subjective and thus super inconsistent. > > Maxime This is how I was asked to do it in the rockchip.yaml file [1], but I know different teams have different style requests. Just let me know what you prefer and I'll get it done that way. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240123212111.202146-3-macroalpha82@xxxxxxxxx/ Thank you, Chris.
