On 8/26/24 14:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 24/08/2024 14:48, karthikeyan wrote:
On 8/23/24 21:51, Conor Dooley wrote:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 09:05:27PM +0530, Karthikeyan Krishnasamy wrote:
Add devicetree binding documentation for Relfor Saib
board which uses Rockchip RV1109 SoC
Signed-off-by: Karthikeyan Krishnasamy <karthikeyan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml | 6 ++++++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
index 1ef09fbfdfaf..29f7e09ae443 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
@@ -848,6 +848,12 @@ properties:
- radxa,zero-3w
- const: rockchip,rk3566
+ - description: Relfor SAIB board
+ items:
+ - const: relfor,saib
+ - enum:
+ - rockchip,rv1109
This does not make sense to me. Why do you have an enum for the SoC
model, implying that this SAIB board would have more than one possible
SoC? I'd expect to see - const: rockvhip,rv1109
There is an upcoming version of SAIB board based on Rockchip RV1103.
Still wrong form multiple points of view:
1. Not logical, we never expect such entry in top level bindings,
2. Same board or different? If same, how is it possible to have two
different SoCs (not modules!) in the same board? These are different
boards. Or maybe this uses some SoM, but your commit msg explained
nothing about this.
You have entire commit msg to explain the hardware. Use it, so you don't
get such questions.
The code above: NAK
It's my mistake, previously my understanding about this binding was
wrong. I will change it in v2 patch.>
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Thanks,
Karthikeyan
