On 20.07.2023 10:49, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 20/07/2023 10:45, Sridharan S N wrote: >> Document the below listed (Reference Design Platform) RDP boards based on IPQ9574 >> family of SoCs. >> >> AL02-C3 - rdp437 >> AL02-C7 - rdp433-mht-phy >> AL02-C10 - rdp433-mht-switch >> AL02-C11 - rdp467 >> AL02-C12 - rdp455 >> AL02-C13 - rdp459 >> AL02-C15 - rdp457 >> AL02-C16 - rdp456 >> AL02-C17 - rdp469 >> AL02-C19 - rdp461 >> AL03-C2 - rdp458 >> >> Signed-off-by: Sridharan S N <quic_sridsn@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> .../devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 20 +++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml >> index dd66fd872c31..d992261da691 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml >> @@ -89,10 +89,20 @@ description: | >> adp >> ap-al01-c1 >> ap-al02-c2 >> + ap-al02-c3 >> ap-al02-c6 >> ap-al02-c7 >> ap-al02-c8 >> ap-al02-c9 >> + ap-al02-c10 >> + ap-al02-c11 >> + ap-al02-c12 >> + ap-al02-c13 >> + ap-al02-c15 >> + ap-al02-c16 >> + ap-al02-c17 >> + ap-al02-c19 > > Why? I asked once, but there was no feedback from Qualcomm. > > Why do we need to do this? What's the point? Another question would be, whether these boards are just one-off test prototypes of which there exist like 5-10 units, or are they actually going to be supported and useful. If it's the former, I don't think it makes sense to keep the device trees upstream. Konrad
