Hello Fukaumi,
On 2024-12-11 07:09, FUKAUMI Naoki wrote:
The Radxa ROCK 5C Lite uses a different SoC (RK3582) compared to the
Radxa ROCK 5C (RK3588S2), but the two are compatible from a software
perspective.
Fixes: df4e08a5eed1 ("dt-bindings: arm: rockchip: add Radxa ROCK 5C")
Signed-off-by: FUKAUMI Naoki <naoki@xxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
index 753199a12923..2254ee079094 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
@@ -895,7 +895,7 @@ properties:
- const: radxa,rock-5b
- const: rockchip,rk3588
- - description: Radxa ROCK 5C
+ - description: Radxa ROCK 5C/5C Lite
items:
- const: radxa,rock-5c
- const: rockchip,rk3588s
I think it would be better to use "rockchip,rk3582" here, to allow
us to possibly use that information later. For example, we might
want to be able to recognize RK3582-based boards in U-Boot without
the need to look into the e-fuses at some point, for which purpose
having a clear designator in the DT would fit perfectly.
As a reminder, using "rockchip,rk3582" would also require a small
addition to drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c.
