Re: [PATCH v3] arm64: new board - Emlid Neutis N5

[Andreas FÃrber]

Hi Aleksandr,

Please keep your replies in text-only format, not HTML.

Am 11.10.18 um 14:01 schrieb aleksandr.aleksandrov@xxxxxxxxx:
>>     Â+/ {
>>     Â+ model = "Emlid Neutis N5 Developer board";
>>     Â+ compatible = "emlid,emlid-neutis-n5-devboard",
>>     Â+ "emlid,emlid-neutis-n5",
>>
>> Do you need the two emlid there? What comes before the comma is the
>> vendor, while what is after is the model.
> Â
> I think emlid-neutis-n5 module could be useful in the future, no need
> this now.

You misunderstand: The point would be to use, e.g., "emlid,neutis-n5"
instead of "emlid,emlid-neutis-n5" with duplicate "emlid,emlid-". It is
orthogonal to having multiple compatible strings.

>> Â+&uart1 {
>> Â+ pinctrl-names = "default";
>> Â+ pinctrl-0 = <&uart1_pins>, <&uart1_rts_cts_pins>;
>> Â+ status = "okay";
>> Â+};
>>
>> I guess this is for bluetooth? Have you tested serdev drivers?
>>
> Yes, bluetooth is connected over uart1.
> You mean if I have tested bluetooth stack via serial device?

Not quite, we're missing a child node within uart1 for a serdev driver.
Is there no such driver yet for your Bluetooth chipset, or did you not
yet check?

> Bluez works stably with bcm43xx over uart 1500000 baud rate.
> Â
>>
>> Also, I have a general comments, and it really depends on what your
>> intention about the board ecosystem is. Do you expect the SOM to be
>> swappable in multiple boards, or do you expect to send it as something
>> that is just fixed into a daughter board?
>>
>> In the former case, you probably want to use overlays instead. In the
>> latter, you're fine.
>>
> Right, we expect the SoM to be swappable. I agree, to use overlays is
> more convenient, but
> the devboard DT file will be a reference for the overlays and the future
> boards based on Neutis.

What about just keeping the common nodes enabled in a SoM .dts, so that
the average board doesn't need an Overlay for booting?

@Maxime/Rob, is it possible to merge .dtso files these days? If not,
could that be considered in the big dts Makefile refactoring? :)

Cheers,
Andreas

-- 
SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 NÃrnberg, Germany
GF: Felix ImendÃrffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG NÃrnberg)