[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250122214604.79e1e829@akair>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2025 21:46:04 +0100
From: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>
To: Tom Rini <trini@...sulko.com>
Cc: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, Rob Herring
<robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
<conor+dt@...nel.org>, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: dts: omap4-panda-a4: Add missing model and
compatible properties
Hi,
Am Tue, 21 Jan 2025 18:08:24 -0600
schrieb Tom Rini <trini@...sulko.com>:
> > If keeping it is just this binding update, then I'd say we keep it, but
> > if it gets any more paninful to maintain, I'm also not going to argue
> > very hard to keep it.
>
> I'm not in the position to see if any of the Pandaboards work at this
> point, so I don't know if they're otherwise functional or a huge pile of
> problems.
I am still testing stuff with pandaboards. But I do not have the a4
one. So yes they are functional. Compared with other devices still in
use using the same SoC, here you can play around with everything, know
the device. so it is a reference for keeping the really interesting
devices working.
Regarding the a4: I think it is better to keep that one in, just that
nobody gets confused if he/she digs out his panda board for some
comparison test and uses a wrong board revision.
Regards,
Andreas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists