On 10/12/2024 10:24, Wasim Nazir wrote: > On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 08:25:34AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 10/12/2024 00:25, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>>>>>> 9100 & 9075 are different from “safe” perspective. They differ in >>>>>>>> changes related to thermal which will be added later in devicetree. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Since this can't be inferred from just looking at the changes, please >>>>>>> make sure to add that to the commit message >>>>>> >>>>>> Any include of other DTS is clear sign something is odd here. Including >>>>>> multiple times without any added nodes is showing these are not real >>>>>> products/boards . >>>>> >>>>> We're adding DTS to reuse the common board changes, with plans to >>>>> include the differences in upcoming patches. To provide more clarity, I >>>>> will include patches in this series to highlight the differences between >>>>> the 9100 and 9075 boards. >>>> >>>> Sure, still do not include DTS. Just like C files don't include C files. >>> >>> So, is the solution simple, rename .dts to .dtsi and include it from >>> both .dts files? >> >> For example. This leads to more questions - what is common here? We do >> not create shared DTSI files just because someone wants, but to really >> note shared components or shared designs. >> > > We can reuse the common dtsi for ride boards, i.e., sa8775p-ride.dtsi, > and then add board-specific changes in the corresponding files. So you will create shared DTSI because "someone wants"? Did you read the question above and valid reasons/answers to it? > > If this approach is acceptable, I can proceed with sending the > next patch series. I hope this will help clarify things further. Best regards, Krzysztof
