[Linux-stm32] [PATCH 12/12] ARM: dts: stm32: Add DTs for STM32MP15x variants of the DHCOR SOM and AV96

[Marek Vasut]

On 5/7/20 6:05 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7 May 2020 9:03:08 PM IST, Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de> wrote:
>> On 5/7/20 5:26 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile b/arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile
>>>> index f43467b02bcd..b4a4d2b0f18e 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile
>>>> @@ -1029,6 +1029,9 @@ dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_STM32) += \
>>>>  	stm32h743i-eval.dtb \
>>>>  	stm32h743i-disco.dtb \
>>>>  	stm32mp157a-avenger96.dtb \
>>>> +	stm32mp151a-dhcor-avenger96.dtb \
>>>> +	stm32mp153a-dhcor-avenger96.dtb \
>>>> +	stm32mp157a-dhcor-avenger96.dtb \
>>>
>>> I'm not really sure if keeping SoM name is a good practice here.
>> Since the
>>> board is sold as "Avenger96" alone, why do you want to prepend SoM
>> name to it?
>>> When you say, "stm32mp157a-avenger96.dtb" it obviously means that
>> Avenger96
>>> board uses the stm32mp157a SoC and that comes from SoM.
>>
>> That's because if you look at the other side of the AV96, you will
>> notice there is this other piece of PCB on it, that's the DHCOR SoM.
>> The
>> SoM is soldered on the AV96 carrier board. And only on that SoM is the
>> STM32MP15xx SoC.
>>
> 
> Yeah I know but what I was saying is that it is not the usual convention to put SoM name in board DTS. The DTS should reflect the actual product name. Here, the SoC prefix is justified since they reflect the family/SoC name and used as a differentiation factor. But using SoM name seems redundant. 
> 
> You can use SoM name if there are chances where different family of SoM can be used on the base board, thereby making it as a differentiation factor. 

There are other SoCs on the DHCOR SoM form factor, I think MX6ULL, so
technically you can populate a different one on the AV96.