Am Wed, 22 Jan 2025 15:10:14 -0600 schrieb Tom Rini <trini@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 02:56:19PM -0600, Robert Nelson wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 2:46 PM Andreas Kemnade <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Am Tue, 21 Jan 2025 18:08:24 -0600 > > > schrieb Tom Rini <trini@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > > > > > > If keeping it is just this binding update, then I'd say we keep it, but > > > > > if it gets any more paninful to maintain, I'm also not going to argue > > > > > very hard to keep it. > > > > > > > > I'm not in the position to see if any of the Pandaboards work at this > > > > point, so I don't know if they're otherwise functional or a huge pile of > > > > problems. > > > > > > I am still testing stuff with pandaboards. But I do not have the a4 > > > one. So yes they are functional. Compared with other devices still in > > > use using the same SoC, here you can play around with everything, know > > > the device. so it is a reference for keeping the really interesting > > > devices working. > > > > > > Regarding the a4: I think it is better to keep that one in, just that > > > nobody gets confused if he/she digs out his panda board for some > > > comparison test and uses a wrong board revision. > > > > Do you want an a4? I could dig one or two out! ;) > > Unless I'm missing something, the a4 hasn't been bootable by upstream in > about 10 years now... There's no top-level compatible, so there's no > match in the generic board code. I can't recall if the A4 versions were > available to anyone other than maintainers and beagleboard.org folks > themselves as part of bring-up/testing. I know I had one and ewasted it > a while ago. > So, yes if they are not really officially spread, then removing them and add a comment about them in the common file or the panda.dts is also a way to go. Regards, Andreas
