On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 12:58:18PM -0700, Tim Harvey wrote:

On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 11:34 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 24/05/2024 20:40, Conor Dooley wrote:

quoted

On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 04:04:50PM -0700, Tim Harvey wrote:

quoted

On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 7:47 AM Conor Dooley [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 09:02:46AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

On 22/05/2024 23:50, Tim Harvey wrote:

quoted

The GW7905 was renamed to GW7500 before production release.

Signed-off-by: Tim Harvey <tharvey@gateworks.com>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml
index 0027201e19f8..d8bc295079e3 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml

@@ -920,8 +920,8 @@ properties:
               - fsl,imx8mm-ddr4-evk       # i.MX8MM DDR4 EVK Board
               - fsl,imx8mm-evk            # i.MX8MM EVK Board
               - fsl,imx8mm-evkb           # i.MX8MM EVKB Board
+              - gateworks,imx8mm-gw75xx-0x # i.MX8MM Gateworks Board

That's not even equivalent. You 7500 != 75xx.

quoted

quoted

               - gateworks,imx8mm-gw7904
-              - gateworks,imx8mm-gw7905-0x # i.MX8MM Gateworks Board

Compatibles do not change. It's just a string. Fixed string.

I think there's justification here for removing it, per the commit
message, the rename happened before the device was available to
customers.
Additionally, I think we can give people that upstream things before they're
publicly available a bit of slack, otherwise we're just discouraging
people from upstreaming early.

Hi Conor,

Thanks for understanding - that's exactly what happened. I'm in the
habit of submitting patches early and often and it's no fun when
something like a silly product name gets changed and breaks all the
hard work.

The board model number is stored in an EEPROM at manufacturing time
and that EEPROM model is used to build a dt name. So instead of GW7905
which would be a one-off custom design it was decided to change the
product to a GW75xx. The difference between GW7500 and GW75xx is
because we subload components on boards between GW7500/GW7501/GW7502
etc but the dt is the same.

If there is resistance to a patch that renames it then I guess I'll
have to submit a patch that removes the obsolete board, then adds back
the same board under a different name. Shall I do that?

I think this patch is fine - other than the inconsistency that Krzysztof
pointed out between the "renamed to gw7500" and the "gw75xx" in the new
compatible.

I am not a fan of renaming compatibles because of marketing change,
because compatible does not have to reflect the marketing name, but
there was already precedent from Qualcomm which I did not nak, so fine
here as well. Double wildcard 75xx is however a bit worrying.

Hi Krzysztof,

Thanks for understanding. The double-wildcard is again a marketing
tool. All GW75** use the same device-tree by design. The boot firmware
that chooses the device-tree understands this and for a GW7521 for
example would look for gw7521 first, gw752x next, gw75xx last.

You haven't documented the other 2 though.

How do "all GW75** use the same device-tree", but then there are 3 
possible DTs for just 1 board?

Selecting a DT is not a unique problem. We don't need unique 
solutions. There's the QCom board-id proposal[1] and OS provided DT[2] 
which are addressing similar issues.

Rob

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240521-board-ids-v3-0-e6c71d05f4d2@quicinc.com/ (local)
[2] https://lists.linaro.org/archives/list/boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org/thread/DZCZSOCRH5BN7YOXEL2OQKSDIY7DCW2M/

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