Hi,
On Tue 14 Nov 23, 17:51, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 05:54:08PM +0100, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
>
> > > Ultimately, I don't care what the file ends up being called when there
> > > are multiple devices documented in it. I'd ack a patch renaming to the
> > > œriginal incarnation of the IP when the documentation for that IP is
> > > added without a second thought.
> >
> > That would be agreeable to me if my proposal still ends up feeling unreasonable
> > to you. But I might very well take you at your word since I ended up purchasing
> > a RK3066 board in a moment of weakness last week.
>
> The ideal outcome I suppose would be documenting both variants. If
> you've gone ahead and bought one, give that a go.
Yeah I'll try to do that eventually, but we really want to have this series
merged as soon as possible. So it wouldn't be reasonable for us to wait for
RK3066 support.
What's your final decision for now: is it okay to keep the file named
rockchip,rk3066-cif.yaml (without this compatible in the file) or do you still
want it called rockchip,px30-vip.yaml?
Cheers,
Paul
--
Paul Kocialkowski, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 04:07:07PM +0100, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue 14 Nov 23, 17:51, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 05:54:08PM +0100, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
> >
> > > > Ultimately, I don't care what the file ends up being called when there
> > > > are multiple devices documented in it. I'd ack a patch renaming to the
> > > > œriginal incarnation of the IP when the documentation for that IP is
> > > > added without a second thought.
> > >
> > > That would be agreeable to me if my proposal still ends up feeling unreasonable
> > > to you. But I might very well take you at your word since I ended up purchasing
> > > a RK3066 board in a moment of weakness last week.
> >
> > The ideal outcome I suppose would be documenting both variants. If
> > you've gone ahead and bought one, give that a go.
>
> Yeah I'll try to do that eventually, but we really want to have this series
> merged as soon as possible. So it wouldn't be reasonable for us to wait for
> RK3066 support.
>
> What's your final decision for now: is it okay to keep the file named
> rockchip,rk3066-cif.yaml (without this compatible in the file) or do you still
> want it called rockchip,px30-vip.yaml?
I'd still rather it was called after the only compatible in the file and
subsequently renamed, sorry.