On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 04:31:38PM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote:
I think so? I'm not sure what the precedent really is for pureOn Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 09:02:59AM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote:IIRC, it is.
I dunno then. It sounds from your message that this is purely a rebrandOn Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 07:21:29AM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote:Yes, of course.
This is a board that exists, that you (and possibly others) have, right?On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 07:18:00 +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote:Thanks for the confirmation. But I suggest to revert these patches.
Huashan Pi board is an embedded development platform based on theApplied to riscv-dt-for-next, thanks! LMK if something looks not as
CV1812H chip. Add minimal device tree files for this board.
Currently, it can boot to a basic shell.
NOTE: this series is based on the Jisheng's Milk-V Duo patch.
Link: https://en.sophgo.com/product/introduce/huashan.html
Link: https://en.sophgo.com/product/introduce/cv181xH.html
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20231006121449.721-1-jszhang@xxxxxxxxxx/
[...]
expected.
[1/7] dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: Add SOPHGO CV1812H plic
https://git.kernel.org/conor/c/21a34e63afcc
[2/7] dt-bindings: timer: Add SOPHGO CV1812H clint
https://git.kernel.org/conor/c/06ea2a1968a9
[3/7] dt-bindings: riscv: Add SOPHGO Huashan Pi board compatibles
https://git.kernel.org/conor/c/d7b92027834e
[4/7] riscv: dts: sophgo: Separate compatible specific for CV1800B soc
https://git.kernel.org/conor/c/5b5dce3951b2
[5/7] riscv: dts: sophgo: cv18xx: Add gpio devices
https://git.kernel.org/conor/c/dd791b45c866
[6/7] riscv: dts: sophgo: add initial CV1812H SoC device tree
https://git.kernel.org/conor/c/681ec684a741
[7/7] riscv: dts: sophgo: add Huashan Pi board device tree
https://git.kernel.org/conor/c/2c36b0cfb408
Several days ago, Sophgo informed me that CV1810 series will be
renamed. And the Huashan Pi will switch to the chip with new name.
To avoid unnecessary conflict, please drop these patch and I will
prepare a new patch once the renamed chip is launched.
of the SoCs,
FYI, Chen and Chao. Maybe you know something more.
so since people already have these boards, I'd rather not.I agree with this. If the above is true, we can just reuse the exists code
We should be able to support both since it's just a naming change,
right?
with a different compatible name, right?
rebrandings of an SoC.
I say for now, assume we can do that, and we can discuss it with Rob and
Krzysztof when the time comes if there is no difference between the SoCs
and boards.
Cheers,
Conor.