Hi Laurent, Eugeniu,
On 06/08/18 11:42, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Eugeniu,
>
> Thank you for the patch.
>
> On Sunday, 5 August 2018 02:11:04 EEST Eugeniu Rosca wrote:
>> Following the recent change in dt-bindings [1], switch from
>> "renesas,h3ulcb" to "renesas,ulcb" compatible string.
>>
>> [1] Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/shmobile.txt
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eugeniu Rosca <erosca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a7795-es1-ulcb-kf.dts | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a7795-es1-ulcb-kf.dts
>> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a7795-es1-ulcb-kf.dts index
>> 06deb67c36c8..7a5b1dc64090 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a7795-es1-ulcb-kf.dts
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a7795-es1-ulcb-kf.dts
>> @@ -14,6 +14,6 @@
>>
>> / {
>> model = "Renesas H3ULCB Kingfisher board based on r8a7795 ES1.x";
>> - compatible = "shimafuji,kingfisher", "renesas,h3ulcb",
>> + compatible = "shimafuji,kingfisher", "renesas,ulcb",
>> "renesas,r8a7795";
>
> This is unrelated to your patch, but due to the reason explained in my review
> of 02/14, I think "shimafuji,kingfisher" should include the SoC name.
>
> This brings up the topic of how to describe boards that are made of an SoC
> "module" board plugged into an expansion "motherboard".
Isn't it the point that the shimafuji board is agnostic to the SoC on
the ULCB?
I presume the Kingfisher board is just the expansion board which would
be identical regardless of if it was put on an H3 ULCB, or an M3 ULCB?
>
>> };
>
Regards
Kieran
