On 06/08/18 11:45, Kieran Bingham wrote: > Hi Laurent, Eugeniu, > > On 06/08/18 11:42, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >> Hi Eugeniu, >> >> Thank you for the patch. >> >> On Sunday, 5 August 2018 02:11:04 EEST Eugeniu Rosca wrote: >>> Following the recent change in dt-bindings [1], switch from >>> "renesas,h3ulcb" to "renesas,ulcb" compatible string. >>> >>> [1] Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/shmobile.txt >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Eugeniu Rosca <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a7795-es1-ulcb-kf.dts | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a7795-es1-ulcb-kf.dts >>> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a7795-es1-ulcb-kf.dts index >>> 06deb67c36c8..7a5b1dc64090 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a7795-es1-ulcb-kf.dts >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a7795-es1-ulcb-kf.dts >>> @@ -14,6 +14,6 @@ >>> >>> / { >>> model = "Renesas H3ULCB Kingfisher board based on r8a7795 ES1.x"; >>> - compatible = "shimafuji,kingfisher", "renesas,h3ulcb", >>> + compatible = "shimafuji,kingfisher", "renesas,ulcb", >>> "renesas,r8a7795"; >> >> This is unrelated to your patch, but due to the reason explained in my >> review >> of 02/14, I think "shimafuji,kingfisher" should include the SoC name. >> >> This brings up the topic of how to describe boards that are made of an SoC >> "module" board plugged into an expansion "motherboard". > > Isn't it the point that the shimafuji board is agnostic to the SoC on > the ULCB? > > I presume the Kingfisher board is just the expansion board which would > be identical regardless of if it was put on an H3 ULCB, or an M3 ULCB?
In fact possibly the interesting point is that the kingfisher as an expansion board is surely an 'overlay', rather than the board itself ? >> >>> }; Regards Kieran
