On 26/07/2023 07:03, Sridharan S N wrote: > > On 7/20/2023 3:18 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >> 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 > > These are all not test rdps and each rdps has its own configurations. > IPQ9574 has four pcie instances and one QDSP processor. Not all rdps use > all of the interfaces and it will vary for each rdp. In next version , > will post with each rdp's configuration explicitly So still no answer why do we need to list it as possible boards. Especially that it messes with compatible style, because c[1-9] looks like board version. I suggest don't add these board types and drop existing ones. Best regards, Krzysztof
