Hi Dragan, On 12/11/24 15:36, Dragan Simic wrote:
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,rk3588sI 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.
It may be okay to introduce "rockchip,rk3582", but reading e-fuse is still required in U-Boot because which unit (cpu coreX, gpu, etc) is broken cannot be determined without reading e-fuse at run-time.
Best regards, -- FUKAUMI Naoki Radxa Computer (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.
As a reminder, using "rockchip,rk3582" would also require a small addition to drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c.
