Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: document AL02-Cx and AL03-C2 boards based on IPQ9574 family

[Sridharan S N]

On 7/26/2023 12:51 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 26/07/2023 07:03, Sridharan S N wrote:
> > On 7/20/2023 3:18 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> > > On 20.07.2023 10:49, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > > On 20/07/2023 10:45, Sridharan S N wrote:
> > > > > Document the below listed (Reference Design Platform) RDP boards based on IPQ9574
> > > > > family of SoCs.
> > > > >
> > > > > AL02-C3  - rdp437
> > > > > AL02-C7  - rdp433-mht-phy
> > > > > AL02-C10 - rdp433-mht-switch
> > > > > AL02-C11 - rdp467
> > > > > AL02-C12 - rdp455
> > > > > AL02-C13 - rdp459
> > > > > AL02-C15 - rdp457
> > > > > AL02-C16 - rdp456
> > > > > AL02-C17 - rdp469
> > > > > AL02-C19 - rdp461
> > > > > AL03-C2  - rdp458
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Sridharan S N <quic_sridsn@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >    .../devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml         | 20 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > > >    1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> > > > > index dd66fd872c31..d992261da691 100644
> > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> > > > > @@ -89,10 +89,20 @@ description: |
> > > > >            adp
> > > > >            ap-al01-c1
> > > > >            ap-al02-c2
> > > > > +        ap-al02-c3
> > > > >            ap-al02-c6
> > > > >            ap-al02-c7
> > > > >            ap-al02-c8
> > > > >            ap-al02-c9
> > > > > +        ap-al02-c10
> > > > > +        ap-al02-c11
> > > > > +        ap-al02-c12
> > > > > +        ap-al02-c13
> > > > > +        ap-al02-c15
> > > > > +        ap-al02-c16
> > > > > +        ap-al02-c17
> > > > > +        ap-al02-c19
> > > > Why? I asked once, but there was no feedback from Qualcomm.
> > > >
> > > > Why do we need to do this? What's the point?
> > > Another question would be, whether these boards are just one-off test
> > > prototypes of which there exist like 5-10 units, or are they actually
> > > going to be supported and useful.
> > >
> > > If it's the former, I don't think it makes sense to keep the device
> > > trees upstream.
> > >
> > > Konrad
> > These are all not test rdps and each rdps has its own configurations.
> > IPQ9574 has four pcie instances and one QDSP processor. Not all rdps use
> > all of the interfaces and it will vary for each rdp. In next version ,
> > will post with each rdp's configuration explicitly
>
> So still no answer why do we need to list it as possible boards.
> Especially that it messes with compatible style, because c[1-9] looks
> like board version.
>
> I suggest don't add these board types and drop existing ones.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

Apologize for the late reply. IPQ bootloader doesn't need these info. we 
will send the patch to drop the existing ones

Thanks,

Sridharan