[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z4FKrwH1oEssxuWi@probook>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2025 16:28:31 +0000
From: J. Neuschäfer <j.ne@...teo.net>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: j.ne@...teo.net, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
Naveen N Rao <naveen@...nel.org>,
Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@...ux.ibm.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>, Frank Li <Frank.Li@....com>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/19] powerpc: dts: Add MPC8314E devicetree
On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 04:21:58PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 02/01/2025 19:31, J. Neuschäfer via B4 Relay wrote:
> > From: "J. Neuschäfer" <j.ne@...teo.net>
> >
> > The MPC8314E is a variant of the MPC8315E without SATA controllers.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: J. Neuschäfer <j.ne@...teo.net>
> > ---
> > arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8314e.dtsi | 7 +++++++
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8314e.dtsi b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8314e.dtsi
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..65a96a485dded5d4918d96b38778399d2f348190
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8314e.dtsi
> > @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
> > +// Copyright 2024 J. Neuschäfer
> > +#include "mpc8315e.dtsi"
> > +
> > +/* MPC8314E does not support SATA */
> > +/delete-node/ &sata0;
> > +/delete-node/ &sata1;
>
>
> You should not delete nodes. That's not really maintainable code. Either
> this is in base DTSI or it does not. If it does exist, then this delete
> is incorrect.
>
> If it does not delete, you are not supposed to include other SoC/device
> which is not the subset of this one, so your includes are not correct.
With that in mind, I think it makes sense to structure these (up to)
four devices the other way around:
- MPC8314 as the base, because it has the least features
- MPC8314E, MPC8315E, and the currently unused MPC8315 based on MPC8314
I'll do that.
Best regards,
J. Neuschäfer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists