Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 14 Jul 2023 17:16:53 +0200
From:   Marco Felsch <m.felsch@pengutronix.de>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Cc:     Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@pengutronix.de>, robh+dt@kernel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, conor+dt@kernel.org,
        shawnguo@kernel.org, kernel@pengutronix.de, festevam@gmail.com,
        linux-imx@nxp.com, marex@denx.de, frieder.schrempf@kontron.de,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: fix DEBIX binding
Message-ID: <20230714151653.7xqrerpmxzv7crel@pengutronix.de>
References: <20230704184109.991104-1-m.felsch@pengutronix.de>
 <6f7586ee-257b-35b5-f986-0d2b370e4035@linaro.org>
 <61e9e380-dcb0-4dd4-562d-bffea2da5097@pengutronix.de>
 <2d9b2341-84ca-d152-8a42-90b815c66125@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2d9b2341-84ca-d152-8a42-90b815c66125@linaro.org>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Precedence: bulk

On 23-07-05, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 05/07/2023 11:28, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
> >>> +        items:
> >>> +          - enum:
> >>> +              - polyhex,imx8mp-debix-model-a        # Polyhex Debix Model A Board
> >>> +          - const: polyhex,imx8mp-debix             # Polyhex Debix boards
> >>
> >> Same comments as for patch #2. I think this should be rather deprecated
> >> - not a good pattern.
> > 
> > The middle compatible was my suggestion, because there's also the Debix Model
> > B Standard and Model B SE, which is the same board, but different SoC variant:
> > 
> >  Model A:          Commercial Temperature Grade
> >  Model B Standard: Industrial Temperature Grade
> >  Model B SE:       Industrial Temperature Grate, but i.MX8MP Lite
> >                    (No Neural/Video/Image accelerators).
> > 
> > As everything outside the SoC is the same, I wanted a generic board
> > compatible that bootloaders can match against. The SoMs should probably
> > not reuse it, but I think it should be kept (perhaps renamed?) for the
> > SBCs that don't utilize the Debix SoM.

The SoM may come also in a 'Standard' and 'SE' edition.

> The order of compatibles in patch two does not really look correct,
> although it is accepted in some cases (e.g. Renesas). But anyway "Debix"
> sounds like a vendor - they even have website - so compatible for all
> boards seems too generic. This should be compatible for one specific
> board. I understand that one board can have different SoMs (it is
> common, just look at Toradex or Variscite), but it does not mean that
> board should be unspecific.

I reused the "polyhex,imx8mp-debix" compatible since we already have a
user [1] and there are no differences.

I can drop it for the SoM case but for the SBC case I can't since this
would break current users [1].

Regards,
  Marco

[1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/barebox/v2023.07.1/source/arch/arm/boards/polyhex-debix/board.c#L38