On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 02:56:19PM -0600, Robert Nelson wrote:

On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 2:46 PM Andreas Kemnade [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi,

Am Tue, 21 Jan 2025 18:08:24 -0600
schrieb Tom Rini [off-list ref]:

quoted

quoted

If keeping it is just this binding update, then I'd say we keep it, but
if it gets any more paninful to maintain, I'm also not going to argue
very hard to keep it.

I'm not in the position to see if any of the Pandaboards work at this
point, so I don't know if they're otherwise functional or a huge pile of
problems.

I am still testing stuff with pandaboards. But I do not have the a4
one. So yes they are functional. Compared with other devices still in
use using the same SoC, here you can play around with everything, know
the device. so it is a reference for keeping the really interesting
devices working.

Regarding the a4: I think it is better to keep that one in, just that
nobody gets confused if he/she digs out his panda board for some
comparison test and uses a wrong board revision.

Do you want an a4? I could dig one or two out! ;)

Unless I'm missing something, the a4 hasn't been bootable by upstream in
about 10 years now... There's no top-level compatible, so there's no
match in the generic board code. I can't recall if the A4 versions were
available to anyone other than maintainers and beagleboard.org folks
themselves as part of bring-up/testing. I know I had one and ewasted it
a while ago.

-- 
Tom