Aw: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm: dts: mt7623: move more display-related nodes to mt7623n.dtsi

[Frank Wunderlich]

Hi,

i rebased changes to 5.9-rc1 [1] and include parts from Davids Series in my one.

David: is it ok to squash your mali-commit with mine moving the other display-related nodes and use me as author?

CK Hu/Matthias/Ryder/Sean: is the structure of DTS ok now?

regards Frank

[1] https://github.com/frank-w/BPI-R2-4.14/commits/5.9-hdmi

> Gesendet: Montag, 10. August 2020 um 09:48 Uhr
> Von: "David Woodhouse" <dwmw2 at infradead.org>
> Betreff: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm: dts: mt7623: move more display-related nodes to mt7623n.dtsi
>
> On Sun, 2020-08-09 at 08:16 +0800, Chun-Kuang Hu wrote:
> > I would like to put all device in mt7623.dtsi with some device's
> > status is "disabled" and change its status in platform dtsi.
> > I would like to see all device in mt7623.dtsi because of its name. If
> > you move some device to platform dtsi, we would trace all platform
> > dtsi to find out how many device in mt7623. One day a new platform
> > enable different devices, you would reorganize all these platform
> > dtsi?
>
> No, this isn't "platform dtsi", surely? This is mt7623a and mt7623n
> dtsi for the two different SoCs, and platforms then just include
> mt7623a.dtsi or mt7623n.dtsi as appropriate for the SoC they are using.
>
> If you really want *all* the nodes for both MT7623A and MT7623N chips
> in a single mt7623.dtsi but disabled, could we still have mt7623a.dtsi
> and mt7623n.dtsi for the chips, enabling the nodes that are only-for-A
> or only-for-N, so that each platform doesn't have to do that for
> itself?
>
> Although putting those nodes that exist only in one chip or the other
> directly into the mt7623[an].dtsi still seems to make more sense to
> me.