On 2024-08-27 13:44, Heiko Stuebner wrote: > Am 27. August 2024 13:29:34 MESZ schrieb Jonas Karlman <jonas@xxxxxxxxx>: >> Hi Krzysztof, >> >> On 2024-08-27 08:52, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 26/08/2024 22:55, Jonas Karlman wrote: >>>> The Hardkernel ODROID-M1S is a single-board computer based on Rockchip >>>> RK3566 SoC. It features e.g. 4/8 GB LPDDR4 RAM, 64 GB eMMC, SD-card, >>>> GbE LAN, HDMI 2.0, M.2 NVMe and USB 2.0/3.0. >>>> >>>> Add devicetree binding documentation for the Hardkernel ODROID-M1S board. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jonas Karlman <jonas@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml | 5 +++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml >>>> index f08e9f2f5dfc..9e29a5ecc94d 100644 >>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml >>>> @@ -598,6 +598,11 @@ properties: >>>> - const: hardkernel,rk3568-odroid-m1 >>>> - const: rockchip,rk3568 >>>> >>>> + - description: Hardkernel Odroid M1S >>>> + items: >>>> + - const: hardkernel,rk3566-odroid-m1s >>> >>> hardkernel,odroid-m1s >>> >>> Why adding SoC name to the board? Can it be Odroid M1S with RK3568? >> >> No, the M1S (rk3566) is a variant of the M1 (rk3568) with less features >> and the smaller SoC package, fully agree that hardkernel,odroid-m1s is >> better, will use it in a v2. >> >> I mainly wanted to keep it consistent to other Hardkernel Odroid boards. >> - hardkernel,rk3326-odroid-go2 >> - hardkernel,rk3326-odroid-go2-v11 >> - hardkernel,rk3326-odroid-go3 >> - rockchip,rk3568-odroid-m1 (hardkernel,rk3568-odroid-m1) >> >> If you agree to a vendor prefix change of rockchip,rk3568-odroid-m1, >> maybe we can also drop the soc name from that compatible at the same >> time? E.g. change it to hardkernel,odroid-m1. > > I'd also agree with going with compatibles without the soc name in it. It is an ABI break but I think except the chrome devices no other board actually uses that part of the compatible ? U-Boot and the FIT spec [1] does have a FIT_BEST_MATCH feature that use the board compatible to find the best matching FIT configuration. Guessing this is a feature of FIT that the chrome devices use. I have recently learnt that the OpenWrt project use the board compatible to validate if a system upgrade package/image can be applied to the currently running system. OpenWrt does not have an image/target for the ODROID-M1 (or other Hardkernel boards), so this ABI breakage should not affect OpenWrt users. I do not know of any other actual use of the board compatible. [1] https://fitspec.osfw.foundation/#select-a-configuration-to-boot Regards, Jonas > > >> Regards, >> Jonas >> >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Krzysztof >>> >> >
