Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 3 Aug 2023 16:41:44 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: document AL02-Cx and AL03-C2 boards based on IPQ9574 family | From | Sridharan S N <> |
| |
On 7/26/2023 12:51 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 26/07/2023 07:03, Sridharan S N wrote: >> On 7/20/2023 3:18 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >>> On 20.07.2023 10:49, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 20/07/2023 10:45, Sridharan S N wrote: >>>>> Document the below listed (Reference Design Platform) RDP boards based on IPQ9574 >>>>> family of SoCs. >>>>> >>>>> AL02-C3 - rdp437 >>>>> AL02-C7 - rdp433-mht-phy >>>>> AL02-C10 - rdp433-mht-switch >>>>> AL02-C11 - rdp467 >>>>> AL02-C12 - rdp455 >>>>> AL02-C13 - rdp459 >>>>> AL02-C15 - rdp457 >>>>> AL02-C16 - rdp456 >>>>> AL02-C17 - rdp469 >>>>> AL02-C19 - rdp461 >>>>> AL03-C2 - rdp458 >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Sridharan S N <quic_sridsn@quicinc.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 20 +++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml >>>>> index dd66fd872c31..d992261da691 100644 >>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml >>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml >>>>> @@ -89,10 +89,20 @@ description: | >>>>> adp >>>>> ap-al01-c1 >>>>> ap-al02-c2 >>>>> + ap-al02-c3 >>>>> ap-al02-c6 >>>>> ap-al02-c7 >>>>> ap-al02-c8 >>>>> ap-al02-c9 >>>>> + ap-al02-c10 >>>>> + ap-al02-c11 >>>>> + ap-al02-c12 >>>>> + ap-al02-c13 >>>>> + ap-al02-c15 >>>>> + ap-al02-c16 >>>>> + ap-al02-c17 >>>>> + ap-al02-c19 >>>> Why? I asked once, but there was no feedback from Qualcomm. >>>> >>>> Why do we need to do this? What's the point? >>> Another question would be, whether these boards are just one-off test >>> prototypes of which there exist like 5-10 units, or are they actually >>> going to be supported and useful. >>> >>> If it's the former, I don't think it makes sense to keep the device >>> trees upstream. >>> >>> Konrad >> These are all not test rdps and each rdps has its own configurations. >> IPQ9574 has four pcie instances and one QDSP processor. Not all rdps use >> all of the interfaces and it will vary for each rdp. In next version , >> will post with each rdp's configuration explicitly > > So still no answer why do we need to list it as possible boards. > Especially that it messes with compatible style, because c[1-9] looks > like board version. > > I suggest don't add these board types and drop existing ones. > > > Best regards, > Krzysztof
Apologize for the late reply. IPQ bootloader doesn't need these info. we will send the patch to drop the existing ones
Thanks,
Sridharan
| |