Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: dts: mediatek: mt7988a-bpi-r4: allow hw variants of bpi-r4

[AngeloGioacchino Del Regno]

Il 15/04/25 12:30, Frank Wunderlich ha scritto:
> Am 15. April 2025 11:56:37 MESZ schrieb AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > Il 15/04/25 10:07, Frank Wunderlich ha scritto:
> > > Am 15. April 2025 09:36:43 MESZ schrieb AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > > > Il 14/04/25 14:32, Daniel Golle ha scritto:
> > > > > On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 11:27:23AM +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> > > > > > Il 12/04/25 12:21, Frank Wunderlich ha scritto:
> > > > > > > From: Frank Wunderlich <frank-w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sinovoip has released other variants of Bananapi-R4 board.
> > > > > > > The known changes affecting only the LAN SFP+ slot which is replaced
> > > > > > > by a 2.5G phy with optional PoE.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just move the common parts to a new dtsi and keep differences (only
> > > > > > > i2c for lan-sfp) in dts.
> > >
> > > > > > This should at least have some different compatible, if not probably also a
> > > > > > different model string - as it's a different device.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 	compatible = "bananapi,bpi-r4-2g5", "bananapi,bpi-r4", "mediatek,mt7988a";
> > > > >
> > > > > Imho it doesn't make sense to declare compatibility with the
> > > > > "bananapi,bpi-r4" as the "bananapi,bpi-r4-2g5" is NOT compatible with the
> > > > > "bananapi,bpi-r4". It's a different board and using firmware meant for the
> > > > > "bananapi,bpi-r4-2g5" on the "bananapi,bpi-r4" (or vice versa) will result
> > > > > in a non-working Ethernet port.
> > > >
> > > > Is this device a BananaPi R4 variant, or is it a completely different device?
> > >
> > > The only difference is that sfp-lan is replaced by RJ45 socket with mt7988 internal phy.
> >
> > Perfect, then:
> > - The only difference is one routing
> >    - The base board is the same
> >    - Same hw project
> >      - The two machines are compatible with each other
> >        ...bar one difference
> >
> > ...then the compatibles shall be as I said before :-)
> >
> > > > If this is a completely different device, then it's not even a BananaPi R4,
> > > > otherwise this is compatible with BananaPi R4, with a small variation :-)
> > >
> > > Sinovoip now announces a R4Pro with some more changes (e.g. an external 2.5g switch),but we have no detailed shematic yet. It looks they also plan a R4lite which is based on different SoC (afair mt7987),but this is for sure different device (and so not using this bpi-r4.dtsi).
> >
> > In that case, R4Lite shall not be compatible with R4, as the name may be the
> > same, but in practice it's a different machine.
> >
> > > But basicly all are named BPi-R4. I guess R4Pro will also get own dts as too much changed.
> >
> > If R4pro is a redesign of the R4 board, that would not be compatible, as it
> > would not be the same base design; otherwise, I'm sure you have well understood
> > how it works for the compatibles, anyway :D
>
> Yes, should i use 3 const in the binding (as i do not expect another hw variant of current R4) or still enum for the first compatible?

Use 3 consts please :-)

Besides, if a variant comes up later, we can always change the first const
to an enum, so no worries.

> > Cheers!
> >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Angelo
> > >
> > >
> > > regards Frank
>
>
> regards Frank