| Message ID | 20200930190143.27032-9-krzk@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | ARM: dts: imx: Board compatibles cleanup | expand |
Hello Krzysztof, On 9/30/20 9:01 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > There are four flavors of TechNexion PICO-IMX6 boards. They have their > own DTSes, even though in Dwarf, Nymph and Pi are exactly the same. > They also have their own bindings so adjust the compatibles to match the > bindings. > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> > > --- > > Changes since v1: > 1. None > --- > arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-dwarf.dts | 2 +- > arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-hobbit.dts | 2 +- > arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-nymph.dts | 2 +- > arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-pi.dts | 2 +- > 4 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-dwarf.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-dwarf.dts > index 659a8e8714ea..d85b15a8c127 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-dwarf.dts > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-dwarf.dts > @@ -13,5 +13,5 @@ > > / { > model = "TechNexion PICO-IMX6 DualLite/Solo Board and Dwarf baseboard"; > - compatible = "technexion,imx6dl-pico", "fsl,imx6dl"; > + compatible = "technexion,imx6dl-pico-dwarf", "fsl,imx6dl"; Could you change this to have all three compatibles ("technexion,imx6dl-pico-dwarf", "technexion,imx6dl-pico", "fsl,imx6dl") and likewise for the other files? That way other firmware that reuses the Linux device tree files and match against the SoM compatible continues to work after update. > }; > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-hobbit.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-hobbit.dts > index d7403c5c4337..08fedcbcc91b 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-hobbit.dts > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-hobbit.dts > @@ -13,5 +13,5 @@ > > / { > model = "TechNexion PICO-IMX6 DualLite/Solo Board and Hobbit baseboard"; > - compatible = "technexion,imx6dl-pico", "fsl,imx6dl"; > + compatible = "technexion,imx6dl-pico-hobbit", "fsl,imx6dl"; > }; > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-nymph.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-nymph.dts > index b282dbf953aa..32ccfc5d41ce 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-nymph.dts > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-nymph.dts > @@ -13,5 +13,5 @@ > > / { > model = "TechNexion PICO-IMX6 DualLite/Solo Board and Nymph baseboard"; > - compatible = "technexion,imx6dl-pico", "fsl,imx6dl"; > + compatible = "technexion,imx6dl-pico-nymph", "fsl,imx6dl"; > }; > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-pi.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-pi.dts > index b7b1c07f96f3..4590e8ad9a91 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-pi.dts > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-pi.dts > @@ -13,5 +13,5 @@ > > / { > model = "TechNexion PICO-IMX6 DualLite/Solo Board and PI baseboard"; > - compatible = "technexion,imx6dl-pico", "fsl,imx6dl"; > + compatible = "technexion,imx6dl-pico-pi", "fsl,imx6dl"; > }; >
On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 09:22:03AM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > Hello Krzysztof, > > On 9/30/20 9:01 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > There are four flavors of TechNexion PICO-IMX6 boards. They have their > > own DTSes, even though in Dwarf, Nymph and Pi are exactly the same. > > They also have their own bindings so adjust the compatibles to match the > > bindings. > > > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> > > > > --- > > > > Changes since v1: > > 1. None > > --- > > arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-dwarf.dts | 2 +- > > arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-hobbit.dts | 2 +- > > arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-nymph.dts | 2 +- > > arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-pi.dts | 2 +- > > 4 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-dwarf.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-dwarf.dts > > index 659a8e8714ea..d85b15a8c127 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-dwarf.dts > > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-dwarf.dts > > @@ -13,5 +13,5 @@ > > > > / { > > model = "TechNexion PICO-IMX6 DualLite/Solo Board and Dwarf baseboard"; > > - compatible = "technexion,imx6dl-pico", "fsl,imx6dl"; > > + compatible = "technexion,imx6dl-pico-dwarf", "fsl,imx6dl"; > > Could you change this to have all three compatibles ("technexion,imx6dl-pico-dwarf", "technexion,imx6dl-pico", > "fsl,imx6dl") and likewise for the other files? > That way other firmware that reuses the Linux device tree files and match against the SoM compatible > continues to work after update. > > > }; > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-hobbit.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-hobbit.dts > > index d7403c5c4337..08fedcbcc91b 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-hobbit.dts > > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-hobbit.dts > > @@ -13,5 +13,5 @@ > > > > / { > > model = "TechNexion PICO-IMX6 DualLite/Solo Board and Hobbit baseboard"; > > - compatible = "technexion,imx6dl-pico", "fsl,imx6dl"; > > + compatible = "technexion,imx6dl-pico-hobbit", "fsl,imx6dl"; > > }; > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-nymph.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-nymph.dts > > index b282dbf953aa..32ccfc5d41ce 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-nymph.dts > > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-nymph.dts > > @@ -13,5 +13,5 @@ > > > > / { > > model = "TechNexion PICO-IMX6 DualLite/Solo Board and Nymph baseboard"; > > - compatible = "technexion,imx6dl-pico", "fsl,imx6dl"; > > + compatible = "technexion,imx6dl-pico-nymph", "fsl,imx6dl"; > > }; > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-pi.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-pi.dts > > index b7b1c07f96f3..4590e8ad9a91 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-pi.dts > > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-pi.dts The bindings, added in commit 53b61224ca40 ("dt-bindings: arm: fsl: Add TechNexion boards"), describe that these are the only valid compatibles. "technexion,imx6dl-pico" is not valid and would require changing the bindings, thus breaking compatibility which you want to avoid. The bindings, not what is present in DTS, is considered ABI. Best regards, Krzysztof
Hi, On 10/1/20 9:32 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 09:22:03AM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-hobbit.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-hobbit.dts >>> index d7403c5c4337..08fedcbcc91b 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-hobbit.dts >>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-hobbit.dts >>> @@ -13,5 +13,5 @@ >>> >>> / { >>> model = "TechNexion PICO-IMX6 DualLite/Solo Board and Hobbit baseboard"; >>> - compatible = "technexion,imx6dl-pico", "fsl,imx6dl"; >>> + compatible = "technexion,imx6dl-pico-hobbit", "fsl,imx6dl"; >>> }; > > The bindings, added in commit 53b61224ca40 ("dt-bindings: arm: fsl: Add > TechNexion boards"), describe that these are the only valid compatibles. > "technexion,imx6dl-pico" is not valid and would require changing the > bindings, thus breaking compatibility which you want to avoid.> > The bindings, not what is present in DTS, is considered ABI. The existing binding doesn't cover these boards then and needs to be extended, no? How about following patch? [I guess we need to keep the two-compatible list they were originally in for compatibility even if it's unused among upstream device trees?] Cheers, Ahmad -------------------------8<--------------------------- From d2e44951f900a1774ef289db22812969e72925d6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@pengutronix.de> Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 12:03:36 +0200 Subject: [RFC PATCH] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: add technexion,imx6dl-pico compatible The technexion,imx6dl-pico -dwarf, -hobbit, -nymph and -pi all use the same SoM. Reflect this compatibility with the SoM in the binding. Signed-off-by: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@pengutronix.de> --- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml | 10 ++++++++++ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml index 6da9d734cdb7..b7110305ce81 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml @@ -211,6 +211,16 @@ properties: - const: gw,ventana - const: fsl,imx6dl + - description: i.MX6DL TechNexion Pico Boards + items: + - enum: + - technexion,imx6dl-pico-dwarf # TechNexion i.MX6DL Pico-Dwarf + - technexion,imx6dl-pico-hobbit # TechNexion i.MX6DL Pico-Hobbit + - technexion,imx6dl-pico-nymph # TechNexion i.MX6DL Pico-Nymph + - technexion,imx6dl-pico-pi # TechNexion i.MX6DL Pico-Pi + - const: technexion,imx6dl-pico + - const: fsl,imx6dl + - description: i.MX6SL based Boards items: - enum:
On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 12:19:08PM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > Hi, > > On 10/1/20 9:32 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 09:22:03AM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-hobbit.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-hobbit.dts > >>> index d7403c5c4337..08fedcbcc91b 100644 > >>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-hobbit.dts > >>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-hobbit.dts > >>> @@ -13,5 +13,5 @@ > >>> > >>> / { > >>> model = "TechNexion PICO-IMX6 DualLite/Solo Board and Hobbit baseboard"; > >>> - compatible = "technexion,imx6dl-pico", "fsl,imx6dl"; > >>> + compatible = "technexion,imx6dl-pico-hobbit", "fsl,imx6dl"; > >>> }; > > > > The bindings, added in commit 53b61224ca40 ("dt-bindings: arm: fsl: Add > > TechNexion boards"), describe that these are the only valid compatibles. > > "technexion,imx6dl-pico" is not valid and would require changing the > > bindings, thus breaking compatibility which you want to avoid.> > > The bindings, not what is present in DTS, is considered ABI. > > The existing binding doesn't cover these boards then and needs to be > extended, no? How about following patch? What do you mean it doesn't cover? It was added exactly to handle them: + - technexion,imx6q-pico-dwarf # TechNexion i.MX6Q Pico-Dwarf + - technexion,imx6q-pico-hobbit # TechNexion i.MX6Q Pico-Hobbit + - technexion,imx6q-pico-nymph # TechNexion i.MX6Q Pico-Nymph + - technexion,imx6q-pico-pi # TechNexion i.MX6Q Pico-Pi > > [I guess we need to keep the two-compatible list they were originally > in for compatibility even if it's unused among upstream device trees?] You want to change both the binding (thus breaking the ABI) and update the DTS to reflect new ABI. Then why having a binding at all? I would assume that either binding is correct or DTS. You propose that both are wrong and both need changes... in such case this is clearly broken. Best regards, Krzysztof
Hello, On 10/1/20 12:37 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> The existing binding doesn't cover these boards then and needs to be >> extended, no? How about following patch? > > What do you mean it doesn't cover? It was added exactly to handle them: > + - technexion,imx6q-pico-dwarf # TechNexion i.MX6Q Pico-Dwarf > + - technexion,imx6q-pico-hobbit # TechNexion i.MX6Q Pico-Hobbit > + - technexion,imx6q-pico-nymph # TechNexion i.MX6Q Pico-Nymph > + - technexion,imx6q-pico-pi # TechNexion i.MX6Q Pico-Pi > Still they are unused. So I'd think these boards should be handled like boards that predated bindings: a binding is written that doesn't break existing users. >> [I guess we need to keep the two-compatible list they were originally >> in for compatibility even if it's unused among upstream device trees?] > > You want to change both the binding (thus breaking the ABI) and update > the DTS to reflect new ABI. Then why having a binding at all? If we leave the old two-compatible enumeration intact, there is no ABI broken. > I would assume that either binding is correct or DTS. You propose that > both are wrong and both need changes... in such case this is clearly > broken. IMO the DTS is the correct one. If you want to honor the author's intention that each base board has a different compatible, it should be an extra compatible and not replace the existing one that may be already in use. Cheers Ahmad > > Best regards, > Krzysztof >
On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 09:41:28AM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > Hello, > > On 10/1/20 12:37 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> The existing binding doesn't cover these boards then and needs to be > >> extended, no? How about following patch? > > > > What do you mean it doesn't cover? It was added exactly to handle them: > > + - technexion,imx6q-pico-dwarf # TechNexion i.MX6Q Pico-Dwarf > > + - technexion,imx6q-pico-hobbit # TechNexion i.MX6Q Pico-Hobbit > > + - technexion,imx6q-pico-nymph # TechNexion i.MX6Q Pico-Nymph > > + - technexion,imx6q-pico-pi # TechNexion i.MX6Q Pico-Pi > > > > Still they are unused. So I'd think these boards should be handled like boards > that predated bindings: a binding is written that doesn't break existing users. OK, let's assume the binding is not correct and DTSes are good. > > >> [I guess we need to keep the two-compatible list they were originally > >> in for compatibility even if it's unused among upstream device trees?] > > > > You want to change both the binding (thus breaking the ABI) and update > > the DTS to reflect new ABI. Then why having a binding at all? > > If we leave the old two-compatible enumeration intact, there is no ABI broken. Just to clarify, because I don't get here the "no ABI broken" part: ABI is the binding, not the DTS. We can change intree DTS as we like, replace compatibles, add nodes, remove nodes. There is no stability requirement for DTS contents. If we leave two-compatible binding intact, it is a broken binding since beginning. Removing non-working, fake ABI is not breaking it because it could never work. > > > I would assume that either binding is correct or DTS. You propose that > > both are wrong and both need changes... in such case this is clearly > > broken. > > IMO the DTS is the correct one. If you want to honor the author's intention > that each base board has a different compatible, it should be an extra > compatible and not replace the existing one that may be already in use. OK, we can go with DTS approach. I fixed few of such cases as well, assuming that DTS was intended and binding was incorrect. In such case all boards will be documented under one compatible technexion,imx6q-pico and DTS will not be changed. Best regards, Krzysztof
Hello, On 10/2/20 10:20 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 09:41:28AM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: >> Hello, >> >> On 10/1/20 12:37 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> The existing binding doesn't cover these boards then and needs to be >>>> extended, no? How about following patch? >>> >>> What do you mean it doesn't cover? It was added exactly to handle them: >>> + - technexion,imx6q-pico-dwarf # TechNexion i.MX6Q Pico-Dwarf >>> + - technexion,imx6q-pico-hobbit # TechNexion i.MX6Q Pico-Hobbit >>> + - technexion,imx6q-pico-nymph # TechNexion i.MX6Q Pico-Nymph >>> + - technexion,imx6q-pico-pi # TechNexion i.MX6Q Pico-Pi >>> >> >> Still they are unused. So I'd think these boards should be handled like boards >> that predated bindings: a binding is written that doesn't break existing users. > > OK, let's assume the binding is not correct and DTSes are good. > >> >>>> [I guess we need to keep the two-compatible list they were originally >>>> in for compatibility even if it's unused among upstream device trees?] >>> >>> You want to change both the binding (thus breaking the ABI) and update >>> the DTS to reflect new ABI. Then why having a binding at all? >> >> If we leave the old two-compatible enumeration intact, there is no ABI broken. > > Just to clarify, because I don't get here the "no ABI broken" part: > ABI is the binding, not the DTS. We can change intree DTS as we like, > replace compatibles, add nodes, remove nodes. There is no stability > requirement for DTS contents. > If we leave two-compatible binding intact, it is a broken binding since > beginning. Removing non-working, fake ABI is not breaking it because it > could never work. Then I misunderstood you. I was thinking about possible out-of-tree users that have boards based on this and are adhering to the binding. Dropping the binding would break those (albeit it's a quite manageable form of brokenness here). >>> I would assume that either binding is correct or DTS. You propose that >>> both are wrong and both need changes... in such case this is clearly >>> broken. >> >> IMO the DTS is the correct one. If you want to honor the author's intention >> that each base board has a different compatible, it should be an extra >> compatible and not replace the existing one that may be already in use. > > OK, we can go with DTS approach. I fixed few of such cases as well, > assuming that DTS was intended and binding was incorrect. In such case > all boards will be documented under one compatible technexion,imx6q-pico > and DTS will not be changed. Sounds good. If further differentiation proves to be needed, it can be a new compatible added in a separate commit. Thanks Ahmad > > Best regards, > Krzysztof >
Hi, sorry for jumping in. On 20-10-02 10:20, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 09:41:28AM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On 10/1/20 12:37 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > >> The existing binding doesn't cover these boards then and needs to be > > >> extended, no? How about following patch? > > > > > > What do you mean it doesn't cover? It was added exactly to handle them: > > > + - technexion,imx6q-pico-dwarf # TechNexion i.MX6Q Pico-Dwarf > > > + - technexion,imx6q-pico-hobbit # TechNexion i.MX6Q Pico-Hobbit > > > + - technexion,imx6q-pico-nymph # TechNexion i.MX6Q Pico-Nymph > > > + - technexion,imx6q-pico-pi # TechNexion i.MX6Q Pico-Pi > > > > > > > Still they are unused. So I'd think these boards should be handled like boards > > that predated bindings: a binding is written that doesn't break existing users. > > OK, let's assume the binding is not correct and DTSes are good. > > > > > >> [I guess we need to keep the two-compatible list they were originally > > >> in for compatibility even if it's unused among upstream device trees?] > > > > > > You want to change both the binding (thus breaking the ABI) and update > > > the DTS to reflect new ABI. Then why having a binding at all? > > > > If we leave the old two-compatible enumeration intact, there is no ABI broken. > > Just to clarify, because I don't get here the "no ABI broken" part: > ABI is the binding, not the DTS. We can change intree DTS as we like, > replace compatibles, add nodes, remove nodes. There is no stability > requirement for DTS contents. > > If we leave two-compatible binding intact, it is a broken binding since > beginning. Removing non-working, fake ABI is not breaking it because it > could never work. The problem here is that it wasn't covered by the review and now we have the mess. I see the DTB and the Bootloader as Firmware. Now imagine if the bootloader for these boards had some dt-fixup logic which won't apply anymore or if the bootloader board init won't get called anymore since the bootloader folks used the compatible found in the DTS. This can cause a regression if the old Bootloader tries to boot the new Kernel+DTS. > > > I would assume that either binding is correct or DTS. You propose that > > > both are wrong and both need changes... in such case this is clearly > > > broken. > > > > IMO the DTS is the correct one. If you want to honor the author's intention > > that each base board has a different compatible, it should be an extra > > compatible and not replace the existing one that may be already in use. Question is what was the author's intention? @Fabio do you have any comments here? > OK, we can go with DTS approach. I fixed few of such cases as well, > assuming that DTS was intended and binding was incorrect. In such case > all boards will be documented under one compatible technexion,imx6q-pico > and DTS will not be changed. Or keep the exisiting bindings and adding the new one. Therefore the yaml needs to handle two cases for each imx6[qdl]: compatible = "technexion,imx6dl-pico-dwarf", "technexion,imx6dl-pico", "fsl,imx6dl"; and compatible = "technexion,imx6dl-pico", "fsl,imx6dl"; Regards, Marco
On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 10:41:19AM +0200, Marco Felsch wrote: > Hi, > > sorry for jumping in. > > On 20-10-02 10:20, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 09:41:28AM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > On 10/1/20 12:37 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > >> The existing binding doesn't cover these boards then and needs to be > > > >> extended, no? How about following patch? > > > > > > > > What do you mean it doesn't cover? It was added exactly to handle them: > > > > + - technexion,imx6q-pico-dwarf # TechNexion i.MX6Q Pico-Dwarf > > > > + - technexion,imx6q-pico-hobbit # TechNexion i.MX6Q Pico-Hobbit > > > > + - technexion,imx6q-pico-nymph # TechNexion i.MX6Q Pico-Nymph > > > > + - technexion,imx6q-pico-pi # TechNexion i.MX6Q Pico-Pi > > > > > > > > > > Still they are unused. So I'd think these boards should be handled like boards > > > that predated bindings: a binding is written that doesn't break existing users. > > > > OK, let's assume the binding is not correct and DTSes are good. > > > > > > > > >> [I guess we need to keep the two-compatible list they were originally > > > >> in for compatibility even if it's unused among upstream device trees?] > > > > > > > > You want to change both the binding (thus breaking the ABI) and update > > > > the DTS to reflect new ABI. Then why having a binding at all? > > > > > > If we leave the old two-compatible enumeration intact, there is no ABI broken. > > > > Just to clarify, because I don't get here the "no ABI broken" part: > > ABI is the binding, not the DTS. We can change intree DTS as we like, > > replace compatibles, add nodes, remove nodes. There is no stability > > requirement for DTS contents. > > > > If we leave two-compatible binding intact, it is a broken binding since > > beginning. Removing non-working, fake ABI is not breaking it because it > > could never work. > > The problem here is that it wasn't covered by the review and now we have > the mess. I see the DTB and the Bootloader as Firmware. Now imagine if > the bootloader for these boards had some dt-fixup logic which won't > apply anymore or if the bootloader board init won't get called anymore > since the bootloader folks used the compatible found in the DTS. This > can cause a regression if the old Bootloader tries to boot the new > Kernel+DTS. Good points. It's nice to have a binding documented but it is more likely that bootloader guys were depending on actual contents of DTS. > > > > > I would assume that either binding is correct or DTS. You propose that > > > > both are wrong and both need changes... in such case this is clearly > > > > broken. > > > > > > IMO the DTS is the correct one. If you want to honor the author's intention > > > that each base board has a different compatible, it should be an extra > > > compatible and not replace the existing one that may be already in use. > > Question is what was the author's intention? @Fabio do you have any > comments here? > > > OK, we can go with DTS approach. I fixed few of such cases as well, > > assuming that DTS was intended and binding was incorrect. In such case > > all boards will be documented under one compatible technexion,imx6q-pico > > and DTS will not be changed. > > Or keep the exisiting bindings and adding the new one. Therefore the > yaml needs to handle two cases for each imx6[qdl]: > compatible = "technexion,imx6dl-pico-dwarf", "technexion,imx6dl-pico", "fsl,imx6dl"; > and > compatible = "technexion,imx6dl-pico", "fsl,imx6dl"; This is the combination I wanted to avoid because it kind of proofs that both (binding and DTS) were incorrect or insufficient. If both are incorrect, then there might be no point to keep it stable. Few other i.MX boards use one compatible for multiple DTS. Usually it is a module's compatible and boards just do not add their own. Best regards, Krzysztof
Hi Marco, On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 5:41 AM Marco Felsch <m.felsch@pengutronix.de> wrote: > Question is what was the author's intention? @Fabio do you have any > comments here? Krzysztof's patch looks good: Reviewed-by: Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com> Thanks
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-dwarf.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-dwarf.dts index 659a8e8714ea..d85b15a8c127 100644 --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-dwarf.dts +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-dwarf.dts @@ -13,5 +13,5 @@ / { model = "TechNexion PICO-IMX6 DualLite/Solo Board and Dwarf baseboard"; - compatible = "technexion,imx6dl-pico", "fsl,imx6dl"; + compatible = "technexion,imx6dl-pico-dwarf", "fsl,imx6dl"; }; diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-hobbit.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-hobbit.dts index d7403c5c4337..08fedcbcc91b 100644 --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-hobbit.dts +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-hobbit.dts @@ -13,5 +13,5 @@ / { model = "TechNexion PICO-IMX6 DualLite/Solo Board and Hobbit baseboard"; - compatible = "technexion,imx6dl-pico", "fsl,imx6dl"; + compatible = "technexion,imx6dl-pico-hobbit", "fsl,imx6dl"; }; diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-nymph.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-nymph.dts index b282dbf953aa..32ccfc5d41ce 100644 --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-nymph.dts +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-nymph.dts @@ -13,5 +13,5 @@ / { model = "TechNexion PICO-IMX6 DualLite/Solo Board and Nymph baseboard"; - compatible = "technexion,imx6dl-pico", "fsl,imx6dl"; + compatible = "technexion,imx6dl-pico-nymph", "fsl,imx6dl"; }; diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-pi.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-pi.dts index b7b1c07f96f3..4590e8ad9a91 100644 --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-pi.dts +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-pi.dts @@ -13,5 +13,5 @@ / { model = "TechNexion PICO-IMX6 DualLite/Solo Board and PI baseboard"; - compatible = "technexion,imx6dl-pico", "fsl,imx6dl"; + compatible = "technexion,imx6dl-pico-pi", "fsl,imx6dl"; };
There are four flavors of TechNexion PICO-IMX6 boards. They have their own DTSes, even though in Dwarf, Nymph and Pi are exactly the same. They also have their own bindings so adjust the compatibles to match the bindings. Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> --- Changes since v1: 1. None --- arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-dwarf.dts | 2 +- arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-hobbit.dts | 2 +- arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-nymph.dts | 2 +- arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-pi.dts | 2 +- 4 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)