Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755460AbcCXBEN (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Mar 2016 21:04:13 -0400 Received: from mail-oi0-f48.google.com ([209.85.218.48]:34436 "EHLO mail-oi0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751117AbcCXBEK (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Mar 2016 21:04:10 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56F2FCD0.1000708@linaro.org> References: <1458762366-9233-1-git-send-email-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> <1458762442-9492-1-git-send-email-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> <56F2F78E.8050002@codeaurora.org> <56F2FCD0.1000708@linaro.org> Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 18:04:09 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/12] ARM: dts: dragonboard-600c: add board support with serial From: Bjorn Andersson To: Srinivas Kandagatla Cc: Stephen Boyd , Andy Gross , linux-arm-msm , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, lkml , linux-soc@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1433 Lines: 46 On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Srinivas Kandagatla 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