Hi Doug? On 2016?04?27? 04:53, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 5:37 AM, Heiko St?bner <heiko at sntech.de> wrote: >>> + model = "Rockchip RK3399 Evaluation Board"; >>> + compatible = "rockchip,rk3399-evb", "rockchip,rk3399", >>> + "google,rk3399evb-rev2", google,rk3399evb-rev1", >>> + "google,rk3399evb-rev0" ; >> >> can you check against which compatibles that coreboot really matches? >> >> As we said that the evb changed between rev1 and rev2, I would expect the >> compatible to be something like >> >> compatible = "rockchip,rk3399-evb", "google,rk3399evb-rev2", >> "rockchip,rk3399"; >> >> leaving out the rev1 and rev0 > > What Heiko suggests seems reasonable to me. > > It all depends on what your bootloader is doing and what you guys want > to do. Chrome OS designs that I've worked on have had board > strappings that you can read a board ID from and that's how the BIOS > (like coreboot) will figure out which board ID it is running on. I'm > not aware of such strappings on rk3399-evb. Do they exist? > > Of course, even without strappings it's possible to get the bootloader > to work sanely. You can either define the revision number at build > time or you can store the revision number somewhere non-volatile. > yes, I will talk with coreboot developer about this, maybe to fix it in coreboot and just keep simple in dtsi file. thanks Jianqun > > -Doug > > >
