[PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: arm: rockchip: Add Firefly Core-PX30-JD4 with baseboard

[Christopher Obbard]

Hi Dragan,

On Thu, 2024-07-18 at 10:43 +0200, Dragan Simic wrote:
> On 2024-07-18 10:34, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 09:31:45AM +0100, Christopher Obbard wrote:
> > > Thanks for the review.
> > > 
> > > On Thu, 2024-07-18 at 06:36 +0200, Dragan Simic wrote:
> > > > Hello Christopher,
> > > > 
> > > > On 2024-07-17 18:46, Christopher Obbard wrote:
> > > > > Add binding for the Firefly Core-PX30-JD4 SoM when used in
> > > > > conjunction
> > > > > with the MB-JD4-RK3328 & PX30 baseboard.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Christopher Obbard <chris.obbard at collabora.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml | 6 ++++++
> > > > >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
> > > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
> > > > > index 1ef09fbfdfaf5..33ca8028bc151 100644
> > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
> > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
> > > > > @@ -148,6 +148,12 @@ properties:
> > > > >            - const: engicam,px30-core
> > > > >            - const: rockchip,px30
> > > > > 
> > > > > +      - description: Firefly Core-PX30-JD4 with MB-JD4-PX30
> > > > > baseboard
> > > > > +        items:
> > > > > +          - const: firefly,px30-mb-jd4
> > > > > +          - const: firefly,px30-core-jd4
> > > > 
> > > > Similarly to how I suggested the new dts(i) files to be named, [1]
> > > > the model names should be named like this:
> > > > 
> > > >            - const: firefly,px30-jd4-core
> > > >            - const: firefly,px30-jd4-core-mb
> > > 
> > > I suppose the order should be the other way around to match other 
> > > entries, e.g
> > > firefly,px30-jd4-core-mb first?
> > 
> > Yes. Mainboard first, then som, then soc.
> 
> Ah yes, sorry, I somehow managed to get the order wrong.  Basically,
> it goes from more specific to less specific.

Right, I thought so and was just double-checking ;-).