Hi Chanh, On Tue, 2024-03-19 at 14:21 +0700, Chanh Nguyen wrote: > Add the initial version of the device tree for the Ampere BMC > platform, which is equipped with the Aspeed AST2600 BMC SoC. > > Signed-off-by: Chanh Nguyen <ch...@os.amperecomputing.com> > --- > arch/arm/dts/Makefile | 1 + > arch/arm/dts/ast2600-ampere.dts | 113 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 114 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 arch/arm/dts/ast2600-ampere.dts > > diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/Makefile b/arch/arm/dts/Makefile > index 37675a3277..3642d59c89 100755 > --- a/arch/arm/dts/Makefile > +++ b/arch/arm/dts/Makefile > @@ -691,6 +691,7 @@ dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_ASPEED) += \ > ast2600-greatlakes.dtb \ > ast2600-intel.dtb \ > ast2600-ncsi.dtb \ > + ast2600-ampere.dtb \ > ast2600-p10bmc.dtb \ > ast2600-pfr.dtb \ > ast2600-qcom-dc-scm-v1.dtb \
Given this hunk and the tags in the `[PATCH]` prefix of the mail subject you've based this change on OpenBMC's fork of u-boot, which is heavily (out of date, and) inspired by Aspeed's SDK tree. I've applied this to OpenBMC's fork for now. However, you've sent this to the upstream list. You will need to rework your patch on top of mainline u-boot if you want it accepted there, and follow all the usual documentation on how to submit patches to the u- boot project (e.g. you should not be including `u-boot v2019.04-aspeed- openbmc` in the patch subject prefix in upstream submissions). Andrew
