Gesendet: Mittwoch, 05. August 2020 um 10:36 Uhr
Von: "David Woodhouse" [off-list ref]

quoted

mt7623.dtsi => mt7623n.dtsi => mt7623n-bananapi-bpi-r2.dts
mt7623.dtsi => mt7623a.dtsi => mt7623a-unielec-u7623.dts (not existing yet,
openwrt seems to use a board-specific dtsi)

Yes, I think we should.

i want to see what MTK/DT owner says to this...
my current way will be still adding the nodes to existing mt7623.dtsi (like ryder lee did it in original patch)
but disabling them to not break mt7623a and splitting it afterwards.

I'll create mt7623a.dtsi and upstream the U7623 support; I think that
can happen without conflicting with anything you do.

I note that the GPU node has been added to mt7623.dtsi in 5.8 too;
that'll want to move to the new mt7623n.dtsi that you create, along
with your other new additions.

i guess mali-node also needs to be moved to mt7623n.dtsi, so my current way seems right...
but it's decision of MTK/DT owner. if they make a note i squash the disabling-commit into this and post v5

regards Frank

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel