On Wed, Nov 06, 2024 at 01:03:08PM +0100, Matthias Schiffer wrote: > On Tue, 2024-11-05 at 18:55 +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 11:40:20AM +0100, Matthias Schiffer wrote: > > > On Mon, 2024-11-04 at 18:47 +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 10:47:25AM +0100, Matthias Schiffer wrote: > > > > > The TQMa62xx is a SoM family with a pluggable connector. The MBa62xx is > > > > > the matching reference/starterkit carrier board. > > > > > > > > Why all the wildcards? Why isn't there a compatible per device in the > > > > family? > > Because all variants use the same Device Tree. There is also only one compatible and one (main) DTSI > for the AM62 SoC family, which our Device Trees are based on. So what varies between the members of the family? > > > For the compatible string we've chosen the TQMa6254 as the representative for the TQMa62xx family. > > > > And all the boards in the family are the exact same? > > There is a single TQMa62xx PCB, which has some AM62 family SoC installed (AM6254 in the case of the > TQMa6254, but all AM62 are possible). TQMa62xx is also the name used for marketing when not talking > about a specific SoC variant: > https://www.tq-group.com/en/products/tq-embedded/arm-architecture/tqma62xx/ > > Some SoM variants with different RAM/eMMC/SPI-NOR/... do exist, but they don't have separate device > trees (firmware may patch some variant information into the DTB however, like the correct RAM size). > > Choosing one representative for the family including the SoC variant number, but not distinguishing > minor variants matches the level of detail used for our other SOMs already supported by mainline > Linux (like the TQMa64xxL and various i.MX-based platforms). I don't like any of this wildcard stuff at all, who is to say that the next soc you put on your SoM won't be an am62a7, which has a specific compatible in the kernel? Your fallback then would be ti,am62a7 not ti,am625. Probably someone will say "that's the am62a family not the am62 family" - but that exact thing is why I hate all of this wildcarding. It's barely any more effort to have a tqm6231 and a tqm6254 compatible than what you're doing with wildcard but it is unambiguous.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
