[PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: fix DEBIX binding
Marco Felsch
m.felsch at pengutronix.de
Fri Jul 14 08:16:53 PDT 2023
On 23-07-05, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 05/07/2023 11:28, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
> >>> + items:
> >>> + - enum:
> >>> + - polyhex,imx8mp-debix-model-a # Polyhex Debix Model A Board
> >>> + - const: polyhex,imx8mp-debix # Polyhex Debix boards
> >>
> >> Same comments as for patch #2. I think this should be rather deprecated
> >> - not a good pattern.
> >
> > The middle compatible was my suggestion, because there's also the Debix Model
> > B Standard and Model B SE, which is the same board, but different SoC variant:
> >
> > Model A: Commercial Temperature Grade
> > Model B Standard: Industrial Temperature Grade
> > Model B SE: Industrial Temperature Grate, but i.MX8MP Lite
> > (No Neural/Video/Image accelerators).
> >
> > As everything outside the SoC is the same, I wanted a generic board
> > compatible that bootloaders can match against. The SoMs should probably
> > not reuse it, but I think it should be kept (perhaps renamed?) for the
> > SBCs that don't utilize the Debix SoM.
The SoM may come also in a 'Standard' and 'SE' edition.
> The order of compatibles in patch two does not really look correct,
> although it is accepted in some cases (e.g. Renesas). But anyway "Debix"
> sounds like a vendor - they even have website - so compatible for all
> boards seems too generic. This should be compatible for one specific
> board. I understand that one board can have different SoMs (it is
> common, just look at Toradex or Variscite), but it does not mean that
> board should be unspecific.
I reused the "polyhex,imx8mp-debix" compatible since we already have a
user [1] and there are no differences.
I can drop it for the SoM case but for the SBC case I can't since this
would break current users [1].
Regards,
Marco
[1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/barebox/v2023.07.1/source/arch/arm/boards/polyhex-debix/board.c#L38
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list