[Linux-stm32] [PATCH] [RFC] ARM: dts: stm32: Add DTs for STM32MP15x variants of the DH SOM and PDK2

[Alexandre Torgue]

On 3/24/20 3:58 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 3/24/20 3:39 PM, Alexandre TORGUE wrote:
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de>
>>> Sent: mardi 24 mars 2020 15:31
>>> To: Alexandre TORGUE <alexandre.torgue at st.com>; linux-arm-
>>> kernel at lists.infradead.org
>>> Cc: Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32 at gmail.com>; Patrice CHOTARD
>>> <patrice.chotard at st.com>; Patrick DELAUNAY <patrick.delaunay at st.com>; linux-
>>> stm32 at st-md-mailman.stormreply.com
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] ARM: dts: stm32: Add DTs for STM32MP15x variants
>>> of the DH SOM and PDK2
>>>
>>> On 3/24/20 3:28 PM, Alexandre Torgue wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 3/24/20 3:15 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>> On 3/24/20 3:07 PM, Alexandre Torgue wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/24/20 2:22 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/24/20 2:04 PM, Alexandre Torgue wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/23/20 3:31 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The DH PDK2 can be populated with SoM with any STM32MP15x variant.
>>>>>>>>> Add the DTs describing the remaining combinations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de>
>>>>>>>>> Cc: Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue at st.com>
>>>>>>>>> Cc: Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32 at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> Cc: Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard at st.com>
>>>>>>>>> Cc: Patrick Delaunay <patrick.delaunay at st.com>
>>>>>>>>> Cc: linux-stm32 at st-md-mailman.stormreply.com
>>>>>>>>> To: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>> NOTE: Is there a better way to do this than to have this kind of
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>        combinatorial explosion of DTs ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have no better idea. Question was the same for stm32 boards, and
>>>>>>>> I chose to take this option.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One option would be to just have DT for the most feature-complete
>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>> (157) and then have U-Boot remove the nodes for HW which is not
>>>>>>> present on the particular SoC option if it's one of the more
>>>>>>> limited ones (153, 151).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes it was a possibility that I discussed with kevin H. at the
>>>>>> latest ELCE but at the end the best way to follow was to enhance
>>>>>> number of dts files. The best would be to have dedicated folders but
>>>>>> it is another story.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or use DT overlays somehow ? U-Boot can apply DTOs onto DT before
>>>>> booting Linux.
>>>>>
>>>>> Having tons of DTs on a system is a lot of duplication, I don't
>>>>> really like that.
>>>>
>>>> I agree that to maintain it's a nightmare, but it's a way to help DT users.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But for starters, feel free to review this patch.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your patch sounds good.
>>>
>>> Then feel free to apply it, thanks.
>>>
>>> btw don't you have a "next" tree somewhere with all the patches queued up for
>>> next release ? If I rebase on linux next, I still have quite a few stm32mp1 DT
>>> patches in my tree which are presumably applied, but I don't see them in linux next.
>>
>>
>> Yes but it is not merged into Linux-next. See: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/atorgue/stm32.git
>>
>> Branch stm32-next
> 
> Thanks. Wouldn't it be more convenient and receive more testing if it
> were to be merged into next, just like the other trees are ?
> 
I completely agree with you! Other arm trees are merged ?