Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 23 Mar 2016 18:04:09 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 04/12] ARM: dts: dragonboard-600c: add board support with serial | From | Bjorn Andersson <> |
| |
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> wrote: > > > On 23/03/16 20:07, Stephen Boyd wrote: >> >> On 03/23/2016 12:47 PM, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote: >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-apq8064-dragonboard-600c.dts >>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-apq8064-dragonboard-600c.dts >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index 0000000..e96aab6 >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-apq8064-dragonboard-600c.dts >>> @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ >>> +#include "qcom-apq8064-v2.0.dtsi" >>> + >>> +/ { >>> + model = "Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. APQ8064 DragonBoard600c"; >>> + compatible = "qcom,apq8064-dragonboard600c", "qcom,apq8064"; >> >> >> Does the bootloader look at this string at all or is it using appended >> DTB design? I'm mostly worried about having that > > Not at least on APQ8064 bootloaders, as they are still missing DT support. > Currently we append dtb to the kernel. >> >> qcom,apq8064-dragonboard600c part. It should probably be >> qcom,apq8064-sbc or something like that instead. > > Will do that in next version. >
This "sbc" isn't that just the abbreviation for "single board computer"? I find it hard to believe this is _the_ 8064 sbc or the only 8064 sbc.
Also, if I make a product based of this board, with some minor changes, is that still the sbc?
I think the compatible should be "qcom,apq8064-db600c", "qcom,apq8064-sbc", "qcom,apq8064"
Regards, Bjorn
| |