Add bindings for the SolidRun CN9132 COM-Express Type 7 evaluation board.
The CEX is based on CN9130 SoC and includes two southbridges.
Because CN9132 and 9131 are just names for different designs around the
same SoC, no soc compatibles beside marvell,cn9130 are needed.
Signed-off-by: Josua Mayer <josua@solid-run.com>
Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/marvell/armada-7k-8k.yaml | 8 ++++++++
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/marvell/armada-7k-8k.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/marvell/armada-7k-8k.yaml
index 74d935ea279c..538d91be8857 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/marvell/armada-7k-8k.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/marvell/armada-7k-8k.yaml
@@ -92,4 +92,12 @@ properties:
- const: solidrun,cn9130-sr-som
- const: marvell,cn9130
+ - description:
+ SolidRun CN9132 COM-Express Type 7 based single-board computers
+ items:
+ - enum:
+ - solidrun,cn9132-clearfog
+ - const: solidrun,cn9132-sr-cex7
+ - const: marvell,cn9130
+
additionalProperties: true
--
2.35.3
Am 09.05.24 um 12:46 schrieb Josua Mayer: > Add bindings for the SolidRun CN9132 COM-Express Type 7 evaluation board. > The CEX is based on CN9130 SoC and includes two southbridges. > > Because CN9132 and 9131 are just names for different designs around the > same SoC, no soc compatibles beside marvell,cn9130 are needed. > > Signed-off-by: Josua Mayer <josua@solid-run.com> > Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> > Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/marvell/armada-7k-8k.yaml | 8 ++++++++ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/marvell/armada-7k-8k.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/marvell/armada-7k-8k.yaml > index 74d935ea279c..538d91be8857 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/marvell/armada-7k-8k.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/marvell/armada-7k-8k.yaml > @@ -92,4 +92,12 @@ properties: > - const: solidrun,cn9130-sr-som > - const: marvell,cn9130 > > + - description: > + SolidRun CN9132 COM-Express Type 7 based single-board computers > + items: > + - enum: > + - solidrun,cn9132-clearfog > + - const: solidrun,cn9132-sr-cex7 > + - const: marvell,cn9130 > + > additionalProperties: true > It appears I will not be able to submit actual device-tree for this board. Therefore when applying this patch-set, it may be skipped. I am not sure about the policy in this case, if it is better to pick or skip.
On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 10:49:13AM +0000, Josua Mayer wrote: > Am 09.05.24 um 12:46 schrieb Josua Mayer: > > Add bindings for the SolidRun CN9132 COM-Express Type 7 evaluation board. > > The CEX is based on CN9130 SoC and includes two southbridges. > > > > Because CN9132 and 9131 are just names for different designs around the > > same SoC, no soc compatibles beside marvell,cn9130 are needed. > > > > Signed-off-by: Josua Mayer <josua@solid-run.com> > > Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> > > Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> > > --- > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/marvell/armada-7k-8k.yaml | 8 ++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/marvell/armada-7k-8k.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/marvell/armada-7k-8k.yaml > > index 74d935ea279c..538d91be8857 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/marvell/armada-7k-8k.yaml > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/marvell/armada-7k-8k.yaml > > @@ -92,4 +92,12 @@ properties: > > - const: solidrun,cn9130-sr-som > > - const: marvell,cn9130 > > > > + - description: > > + SolidRun CN9132 COM-Express Type 7 based single-board computers > > + items: > > + - enum: > > + - solidrun,cn9132-clearfog > > + - const: solidrun,cn9132-sr-cex7 > > + - const: marvell,cn9130 > > + > > additionalProperties: true > > > It appears I will not be able to submit actual device-tree for this > board. Therefore when applying this patch-set, it may be skipped. > > I am not sure about the policy in this case, > if it is better to pick or skip. What do you mean my "not be able to"? Does the device exist? If it does then, I at least, have no objection to documenting a compatible for it. Cheers, Conor.
Am 09.05.24 um 18:00 schrieb Conor Dooley: > On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 10:49:13AM +0000, Josua Mayer wrote: >> Am 09.05.24 um 12:46 schrieb Josua Mayer: >>> Add bindings for the SolidRun CN9132 COM-Express Type 7 evaluation board. >>> The CEX is based on CN9130 SoC and includes two southbridges. >>> >>> Because CN9132 and 9131 are just names for different designs around the >>> same SoC, no soc compatibles beside marvell,cn9130 are needed. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Josua Mayer <josua@solid-run.com> >>> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> >>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> >>> --- >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/marvell/armada-7k-8k.yaml | 8 ++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/marvell/armada-7k-8k.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/marvell/armada-7k-8k.yaml >>> index 74d935ea279c..538d91be8857 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/marvell/armada-7k-8k.yaml >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/marvell/armada-7k-8k.yaml >>> @@ -92,4 +92,12 @@ properties: >>> - const: solidrun,cn9130-sr-som >>> - const: marvell,cn9130 >>> >>> + - description: >>> + SolidRun CN9132 COM-Express Type 7 based single-board computers >>> + items: >>> + - enum: >>> + - solidrun,cn9132-clearfog >>> + - const: solidrun,cn9132-sr-cex7 >>> + - const: marvell,cn9130 >>> + >>> additionalProperties: true >>> >> It appears I will not be able to submit actual device-tree for this >> board. Therefore when applying this patch-set, it may be skipped. >> >> I am not sure about the policy in this case, >> if it is better to pick or skip. > What do you mean my "not be able to"? I may not be able to do it in time for closing of merge window. > Does the device exist? Yes, it exists, and we have a (low quality) downstream dts. > If it does > then, I at least, have no objection to documenting a compatible for it. Great, in this case please keep it, thanks!
Am 09.05.24 um 18:00 schrieb Conor Dooley: > On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 10:49:13AM +0000, Josua Mayer wrote: >> Am 09.05.24 um 12:46 schrieb Josua Mayer: >>> Add bindings for the SolidRun CN9132 COM-Express Type 7 evaluation board. >>> The CEX is based on CN9130 SoC and includes two southbridges. >>> >>> Because CN9132 and 9131 are just names for different designs around the >>> same SoC, no soc compatibles beside marvell,cn9130 are needed. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Josua Mayer <josua@solid-run.com> >>> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> >>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> >>> --- >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/marvell/armada-7k-8k.yaml | 8 ++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/marvell/armada-7k-8k.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/marvell/armada-7k-8k.yaml >>> index 74d935ea279c..538d91be8857 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/marvell/armada-7k-8k.yaml >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/marvell/armada-7k-8k.yaml >>> @@ -92,4 +92,12 @@ properties: >>> - const: solidrun,cn9130-sr-som >>> - const: marvell,cn9130 >>> >>> + - description: >>> + SolidRun CN9132 COM-Express Type 7 based single-board computers >>> + items: >>> + - enum: >>> + - solidrun,cn9132-clearfog >>> + - const: solidrun,cn9132-sr-cex7 >>> + - const: marvell,cn9130 >>> + >>> additionalProperties: true >>> >> It appears I will not be able to submit actual device-tree for this >> board. Therefore when applying this patch-set, it may be skipped. >> >> I am not sure about the policy in this case, >> if it is better to pick or skip. > What do you mean my "not be able to"? Does the device exist? If it does > then, I at least, have no objection to documenting a compatible for it. Yes, it exists, and we do have a (low quality) dts for it. I may not be able to do it in time for closing of merge window. If it can go with actual dts, that's great!
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.