On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Srinivas Kandagatla
[off-list ref] wrote:

On 23/03/16 20:07, Stephen Boyd wrote:

quoted

On 03/23/2016 12:47 PM, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:

quoted

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.

quoted

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