Hi, On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 3:33 AM Rakesh Pillai <pillair@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > What I'm trying to say is this. Imagine that: > > > > a) the device tree has the "variant" property. > > > > b) the BRD file has two entries, one for "board-id" (1) and one for > > "board-id + chip-id" (2). It doesn't have one for "board-id + chip-id > > + variant" (3). > > > > With your suggestion we'll see the "variant" property in the device > > tree. That means we'll search for (1) and (3). (3) isn't there, so > > we'll pick (1). ...but we really should have picked (2), right? > > Do we expect board-2.bin to not be populated with the bdf with variant field (if its necessary ?) The whole fact that there is a fallback to begin with implies that there can be a mismatch between the board-2.bin and the device tree file. Once we accept that there can be a mismatch, it seems good to try all 3 fallbacks in order. > Seems fine for me, if we have 2 fallback names if that is needed. OK, sounds good. So hopefully Abhishek can post a v3 based on what's in <https://crrev.com/c/2556437> and you can confirm you're good with it there? -Doug
