Hi, On Tue 14 Nov 23, 17:51, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 05:54:08PM +0100, Paul Kocialkowski wrote: > > > > Ultimately, I don't care what the file ends up being called when there > > > are multiple devices documented in it. I'd ack a patch renaming to the > > > œriginal incarnation of the IP when the documentation for that IP is > > > added without a second thought. > > > > That would be agreeable to me if my proposal still ends up feeling unreasonable > > to you. But I might very well take you at your word since I ended up purchasing > > a RK3066 board in a moment of weakness last week. > > The ideal outcome I suppose would be documenting both variants. If > you've gone ahead and bought one, give that a go. Yeah I'll try to do that eventually, but we really want to have this series merged as soon as possible. So it wouldn't be reasonable for us to wait for RK3066 support. What's your final decision for now: is it okay to keep the file named rockchip,rk3066-cif.yaml (without this compatible in the file) or do you still want it called rockchip,px30-vip.yaml? Cheers, Paul -- Paul Kocialkowski, Bootlin Embedded Linux and kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
