On 24/08/2024 14:48, karthikeyan wrote: > On 8/23/24 21:51, Conor Dooley wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 09:05:27PM +0530, Karthikeyan Krishnasamy wrote: >>> Add devicetree binding documentation for Relfor Saib >>> board which uses Rockchip RV1109 SoC >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Karthikeyan Krishnasamy <karthikeyan@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml | 6 ++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml >>> index 1ef09fbfdfaf..29f7e09ae443 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml >>> @@ -848,6 +848,12 @@ properties: >>> - radxa,zero-3w >>> - const: rockchip,rk3566 >>> >>> + - description: Relfor SAIB board >>> + items: >>> + - const: relfor,saib >>> + - enum: >>> + - rockchip,rv1109 >> >> This does not make sense to me. Why do you have an enum for the SoC >> model, implying that this SAIB board would have more than one possible >> SoC? I'd expect to see - const: rockvhip,rv1109 >> > There is an upcoming version of SAIB board based on Rockchip RV1103. Still wrong form multiple points of view: 1. Not logical, we never expect such entry in top level bindings, 2. Same board or different? If same, how is it possible to have two different SoCs (not modules!) in the same board? These are different boards. Or maybe this uses some SoM, but your commit msg explained nothing about this. You have entire commit msg to explain the hardware. Use it, so you don't get such questions. The code above: NAK Best regards, Krzysztof
