On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Srinivas Kandagatla
<srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 23/03/16 20:07, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>
>> On 03/23/2016 12:47 PM, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-apq8064-dragonboard-600c.dts
>>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-apq8064-dragonboard-600c.dts
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 0000000..e96aab6
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-apq8064-dragonboard-600c.dts
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
>>> +#include "qcom-apq8064-v2.0.dtsi"
>>> +
>>> +/ {
>>> + model = "Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. APQ8064 DragonBoard600c";
>>> + compatible = "qcom,apq8064-dragonboard600c", "qcom,apq8064";
>>
>>
>> Does the bootloader look at this string at all or is it using appended
>> DTB design? I'm mostly worried about having that
>
> Not at least on APQ8064 bootloaders, as they are still missing DT support.
> Currently we append dtb to the kernel.
>>
>> qcom,apq8064-dragonboard600c part. It should probably be
>> qcom,apq8064-sbc or something like that instead.
>
> Will do that in next version.
>
This "sbc" isn't that just the abbreviation for "single board
computer"? I find it hard to believe this is _the_ 8064 sbc or the
only 8064 sbc.
Also, if I make a product based of this board, with some minor
changes, is that still the sbc?
I think the compatible should be "qcom,apq8064-db600c",
"qcom,apq8064-sbc", "qcom,apq8064"
Regards,
Bjorn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
