[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7a3c1222-adb2-4daf-a31d-1858eb83ac2c@solid-run.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 14:36:12 +0000
From: Josua Mayer <josua@...id-run.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>, Andrew Lunn
<andrew@...n.ch>, Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>, Sebastian
Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>, Rob Herring
<robh+dt@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Rob
Herring <robh@...nel.org>
CC: Yazan Shhady <yazan.shhady@...id-run.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "devicetree@...r.kernel.org"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64: dts: add description for solidrun cn9130
som and clearfog boards
Hi Krzysztof,
Am 05.04.24 um 09:05 schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
> On 04/04/2024 17:35, Josua Mayer wrote:
>> Add description for the SolidRun CN9130 SoM, and Clearfog Base / Pro
>> reference boards.
>>
>> The SoM has been designed as a pin-compatible replacement for the older
>> Armada 388 based SoM. Therefore it supports the same boards and a
>> similar feature set.
>>
>> Most notable upgrades:
>> - 4x Cortex-A72
>> - 10Gbps SFP
>> - Both eMMC and SD supported at the same time
>>
>> The developer first supporting this product at SolidRun decided to use
>> different filenames for the DTBs: Armada 388 uses the full
>> "clearfog" string while cn9130 uses the abbreviation "cf".
>> This name is already hard-coded in pre-installed vendor u-boot and can
>> not be changed easily.
>>
>> NOTICE IN CASE ANYBODY WANTS TO SELF-UPGRADE:
>> CN9130 SoM has a different footprint from Armada 388 SoM.
>> Components on the carrier board below the SoM may collide causing
>> damage, such as on Clearfog Base.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Josua Mayer <josua@...id-run.com>
>> ---
> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Thanks!
Meanwhile I found two instances of status-property in wrong place,
and also some small changes I prefer to make for v3
(discovered while working on cn9131 board).
Do you prefer in this case to drop your review tag,
or alternatively to keep it, but add separate patch in v3?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists