On Wed 23 Mar 18:48 PDT 2016, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 03/23/2016 06:04 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Srinivas Kandagatla > > <srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On 23/03/16 20:07, Stephen Boyd wrote: [..] > > > > 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" > > > > > > I really hope that people don't keep using the qcom bootloader dtb > picking design if they make a new product based off qcom boards with a > slight variation. They should replace the vendor part of the compatible > anyway with their own vendor prefix, and then the bootloader would need > to be updated to look for that string or something else. I really don't > want to get in the business of updating dtbTool for all the non-qcom > designs that pop up because they keep using the qcom dtb identification > scheme. It almost doesn't scale right now and that's just qcom designs. At that other company the various dtb's that was to be picked for a given product was always to support the various SoC versions; so those devices always shipped with the mtp board-id and msm-id. As far as I've seen this is how Qualcomm's Android customers does it. But as things progress further I do see a need for being able to also pick the right product and at that point you're right that the vendor must change their boot loader. 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
