[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5ae8c143-64cf-469d-b4f2-bed5bd9ee87b@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2023 19:16:25 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: jaswinder.singh@...aro.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, robh@...nel.org,
ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org, masahisa.kojima@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] dt-bindings: arm: socionext: add Synquacer platforms
On 20/06/2023 19:07, jaswinder.singh@...aro.org wrote:
> From: Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>
>
> Socionext's DeveloperBox is based on the SC2A11B SoC (Synquacer).
> Specify bindings for the platform and boards based on that.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>
> ---
Attach changelog after ---.
> .../bindings/arm/socionext/synquacer.yaml | 29 +++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/socionext/synquacer.yaml
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/socionext/synquacer.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/socionext/synquacer.yaml
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..c582d9c31213
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/socionext/synquacer.yaml
> @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause
> +%YAML 1.2
> +---
> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/arm/socionext/synquacer.yaml#
> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> +
> +title: Socionext Synquacer platform
> +
> +maintainers:
> + - Masahisa Kojima <masahisa.kojima@...aro.org>
> + - Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>
> +
> +description:
> + Socionext SC2A11B (Synquacer) SoC based boards
> +
> +properties:
> + $nodename:
> + const: '/'
> + compatible:
> + oneOf:
> + - items:
> + - enum:
> + - socionext,developer-box
> + - socionext,synquacer
> + - const: socionext,sc2a11b
That's quite different change. What is synquacer in this case? You claim
now it is a board, but based on previous discussions and U-Boot source
it does not look like such. What's more, it does not match U-Boot
sources and there is no Linux user of this, so it contradicts points of
our previous discussion.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists