It appears more typical to use "-" rather than "_" in the filename to
join SoC and board names.

Fixed.

I guess "_ref" means "reference". Is that how the boards are commonly
known? Are you sure there will never be another reference board for
these SoCs? Given the "model" values in the file, something more like
vt8500-bv07.dts might be more appropriate?

I'm fairly certain there will never be another reference board, as these
SoC's seem to disappear after a few months and a new one comes out.
Most of the models are chinese in origin with no real identifying names.
Having said that, I have renamed the dts files to a less 'generic' name.
vt8500-bv07.dts, wm8850-mid.dts.
wm8505-ref is the same as I can't find any other identification for it, and
everyone else I've had contact with who has one has the same board
design.

quoted

+     /*
+      * Display node is based on Sascha Hauer's patch on dri-devel.
+      * Added a bpp property to calculate the size of the framebuffer
+      * until the binding is formalized.
+      */
+     display {

Maybe it's better to just hold off on adding this node, to wait until
the binding is complete so this file doesn't churn? Certainly it sounded
like Sascha was going to change the binding a little in response to
comments it received.

My understanding with Sascha's patch is that it won't include a pixel
format property and therefore we won't be able to use his binding properly
until its revisited. Without this node, we have no display output available
other than uart - and that's only available if you modify the hardware.

This patchset will make arch-vt8500 nearly unusable without this node as
we would have to leave the framebuffer code out as well.

Always open to suggestions,

Regards
Tony Prisk