[PATCH v2 6/6] ARM: sun8i: dts: Add Ippo-q8h v1.2 with A33 and 1024x600 lcd support
Hans de Goede
hdegoede at redhat.com
Wed Jun 3 04:12:04 PDT 2015
On 03-06-15 11:45, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 10:29:09AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> On 02-06-15 10:14, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 04:55:06PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>> The Ippo-q8h is a tablet circuit board commonly found in cheap Android
>>>> tablets. The v1.2 version can be used with either an A23 or A33 SoC.
>>>> This adds a dts file for the v1.2 board with an A33 SoC and a 1024x600
>>>> LCD screen (most of these tablets have a 800x480 screen).
>>> I think the difference between the resolution here is more of a case
>>> for the DT quirks interface:
>> I would expect the only difference between the 2 dts files to be the
>> node describing the lcd panel, so yes that makes somewhat sense.
>>> Do you know if there's some way to autodetect the two board versions
>>> (like a board id somewhere in an EEPROM)?
>> No, AFAIK there is no way to tell the difference. There is no eeprom no
>> the board, and we really cannot rely on the nand contents.
>>> If not, then maybe u-boot can simply add that board compatible to the
>>> list, and we'll base our logic on that when we'll need it.
>> That means extra logic in u-boot, and on the kernel side, for what
>> benefit exactly? Such logic would make sense if there was one u-boot
>> image which runtime adjusted itself, but that is not an option.
> For what benefit? One kernel image which runtime adjusts itself.
You mean one dtb right, because the kernel itself already runtime
> It's especially possible if u-boot's image is not, which seems to be what
> you're saying.
But we will still need different configs in u-boot, and we need
to add code + config to u-boot to plug in the extra compatibles
to automatically select the right built-in overlays.
>> And we can avoid copy and paste on the dts side by putting all
>> the common stuff in a common file and including that, I believe
>> that that is better (KISS = better) since we've no way to runtime
>> do the right thing AFAICT.
> My concern is about the ever-growing number of DTS that just are small
> variations of one or the other. What about the time when we'll
> discover that this board has a variant that has an emmc, and some that
> don't have any button, or the i2c bus 2 not wired, and one other that
> doesn't have any HDMI?
> Do we really want to have a dts called
> Especially when we will have the one that we include here that will
> not have followed this convention because it was introduced before
> that, and that we have a way to deal with this nicely?
> You chose to consider the DTS names an ABI, the best way to handle
> this is to have a DTS as generic as possible, and leave all these
> small variations outside of the name.
Ok, so for now this is not really an issue at all since the dts
does not yet decribe the lcd at all. So can you merge this one
renamed to a more generic name for 4.2?
That will work fine for now.
Then we can use the DT quirks interface to add different lcd
nodes for different variants once we get lcd support in the kernel,
and teach u-boot to add the extra board compatible to select
the right lcd node at that time.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel