[PATCH 3/4] dt-bindings: arm: rockchip: Add Hardkernel ODROID-M1S

[Jonas Karlman]

On 2024-08-27 13:44, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> Am 27. August 2024 13:29:34 MESZ schrieb Jonas Karlman <jonas at kwiboo.se>:
>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>
>> On 2024-08-27 08:52, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 26/08/2024 22:55, Jonas Karlman wrote:
>>>> The Hardkernel ODROID-M1S is a single-board computer based on Rockchip
>>>> RK3566 SoC. It features e.g. 4/8 GB LPDDR4 RAM, 64 GB eMMC, SD-card,
>>>> GbE LAN, HDMI 2.0, M.2 NVMe and USB 2.0/3.0.
>>>>
>>>> Add devicetree binding documentation for the Hardkernel ODROID-M1S board.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jonas Karlman <jonas at kwiboo.se>
>>>> ---
>>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml | 5 +++++
>>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
>>>> index f08e9f2f5dfc..9e29a5ecc94d 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
>>>> @@ -598,6 +598,11 @@ properties:
>>>>            - const: hardkernel,rk3568-odroid-m1
>>>>            - const: rockchip,rk3568
>>>>  
>>>> +      - description: Hardkernel Odroid M1S
>>>> +        items:
>>>> +          - const: hardkernel,rk3566-odroid-m1s
>>>
>>> hardkernel,odroid-m1s
>>>
>>> Why adding SoC name to the board? Can it be Odroid M1S with RK3568?
>>
>> No, the M1S (rk3566) is a variant of the M1 (rk3568) with less features
>> and the smaller SoC package, fully agree that hardkernel,odroid-m1s is
>> better, will use it in a v2.
>>
>> I mainly wanted to keep it consistent to other Hardkernel Odroid boards.
>> - hardkernel,rk3326-odroid-go2
>> - hardkernel,rk3326-odroid-go2-v11
>> - hardkernel,rk3326-odroid-go3
>> - rockchip,rk3568-odroid-m1 (hardkernel,rk3568-odroid-m1)
>>
>> If you agree to a vendor prefix change of rockchip,rk3568-odroid-m1,
>> maybe we can also drop the soc name from that compatible at the same
>> time? E.g. change it to hardkernel,odroid-m1.
> 
> I'd also agree with going with compatibles without the soc name in it. It is an ABI break but I think except the chrome devices no other board actually uses that part of the compatible ?

U-Boot and the FIT spec [1] does have a FIT_BEST_MATCH feature that use
the board compatible to find the best matching FIT configuration.
Guessing this is a feature of FIT that the chrome devices use.

I have recently learnt that the OpenWrt project use the board compatible
to validate if a system upgrade package/image can be applied to the
currently running system.

OpenWrt does not have an image/target for the ODROID-M1 (or other
Hardkernel boards), so this ABI breakage should not affect OpenWrt users.

I do not know of any other actual use of the board compatible.

[1] https://fitspec.osfw.foundation/#select-a-configuration-to-boot

Regards,
Jonas

> 
> 
>> Regards,
>> Jonas
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Krzysztof
>>>
>>
>