Hi Andreas, On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 22:54, Andreas Färber <[email protected]> wrote: > > BTW I think the subject convention has been "ARM: dts: ...", with "ARM: > mstar: ..." more for mach-mstar.
I noticed this after sending out this series. I've fixed up the subjects in line with convention for the next try. > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/mercury5-ssc8336n-midrive08.dts > > b/arch/arm/boot/dts/mercury5-ssc8336n-midrive08.dts > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000000..4ee50ecf6ab1 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/mercury5-ssc8336n-midrive08.dts > > @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > +/* > > + * Copyright (c) 2019 thingy.jp. > > + * Author: Daniel Palmer <[email protected]> > > + */ > > + > > +/dts-v1/; > > +#include "mercury5-ssc8336n.dtsi" > > + > > +/ { > > + model = "midrive d08"; > > Couldn't find this on their website. Should this be "70mai midrive ..." > or is "midrive" a different brand? I think it should be 70mai Midrive D08 based on your comments on the other model names. On their site this camera is now called "Dash Cam Lite". Midrive D08 is the name I bought it under and the name that was used for it's FCC approval (https://fccid.io/2AOK9-MIDRIVED08) so that's what I went with. > > + compatible = "70mai,midrived08", "mstar,mercury5"; > > Have you considered naming it "70mai,midrive-d08" for better > readability? (affects 1/5) I went with midrived08 as that's what was used for the FCC and from what I remember was written on the casing. Thanks, Daniel
