Add support for the Variscite i.MX6UL VAR-SOM-MX6UL and the Variscite
Concerto carrier board.

Signed-off-by: Antonin Godard <antonin.godard@bootlin.com>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml | 6 ++++++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml
index 0db2cbd7891ffb361e0ac60fe6be66e381b2a8f4..a8f8cb845a2085eb13594adacf33f372185e8b0b 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml
@@ -688,6 +688,12 @@ properties:
           - const: phytec,imx6ul-pcl063   # PHYTEC phyCORE-i.MX 6UL
           - const: fsl,imx6ul
 
+      - description: i.MX6UL Variscite VAR-SOM-MX6 Boards
+        items:
+          - const: variscite,mx6ulconcerto
+          - const: variscite,var-som-imx6ul
+          - const: fsl,imx6ul
+
       - description: Kontron BL i.MX6UL (N631X S) Board
         items:
           - const: kontron,bl-imx6ul       # Kontron BL i.MX6UL Carrier Board

-- 
2.47.0

On 10/03/2025 16:56, Antonin Godard wrote:
> Add support for the Variscite i.MX6UL VAR-SOM-MX6UL and the Variscite
> Concerto carrier board.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Antonin Godard <antonin.godard@bootlin.com>
> ---
<form letter>
This is a friendly reminder during the review process.

It looks like you received a tag and forgot to add it.

If you do not know the process, here is a short explanation:
Please add Acked-by/Reviewed-by/Tested-by tags when posting new versions
of patchset, under or above your Signed-off-by tag, unless patch changed
significantly (e.g. new properties added to the DT bindings). Tag is
"received", when provided in a message replied to you on the mailing
list. Tools like b4 can help here. However, there's no need to repost
patches *only* to add the tags. The upstream maintainer will do that for
tags received on the version they apply.

Please read:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.12-rc3/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L577

If a tag was not added on purpose, please state why and what changed.
</form letter>


Best regards,
Krzysztof

On 10/03/2025 17:22, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 10/03/2025 16:56, Antonin Godard wrote:
>> Add support for the Variscite i.MX6UL VAR-SOM-MX6UL and the Variscite
>> Concerto carrier board.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Antonin Godard <antonin.godard@bootlin.com>
>> ---
> <form letter>
> This is a friendly reminder during the review process.
> 
> It looks like you received a tag and forgot to add it.
> 
> If you do not know the process, here is a short explanation:
> Please add Acked-by/Reviewed-by/Tested-by tags when posting new versions
> of patchset, under or above your Signed-off-by tag, unless patch changed
> significantly (e.g. new properties added to the DT bindings). Tag is
> "received", when provided in a message replied to you on the mailing
> list. Tools like b4 can help here. However, there's no need to repost
> patches *only* to add the tags. The upstream maintainer will do that for
> tags received on the version they apply.
> 
> Please read:
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.12-rc3/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L577
> 
> If a tag was not added on purpose, please state why and what changed.

And now I noticed you used b4, so I really do not get how the tags can
be missing here. :/

Best regards,
Krzysztof

On Mon Mar 10, 2025 at 5:22 PM CET, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 10/03/2025 17:22, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 10/03/2025 16:56, Antonin Godard wrote:
>>> Add support for the Variscite i.MX6UL VAR-SOM-MX6UL and the Variscite
>>> Concerto carrier board.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Antonin Godard <antonin.godard@bootlin.com>
>>> ---
>> <form letter>
>> This is a friendly reminder during the review process.
>> 
>> It looks like you received a tag and forgot to add it.
>> 
>> If you do not know the process, here is a short explanation:
>> Please add Acked-by/Reviewed-by/Tested-by tags when posting new versions
>> of patchset, under or above your Signed-off-by tag, unless patch changed
>> significantly (e.g. new properties added to the DT bindings). Tag is
>> "received", when provided in a message replied to you on the mailing
>> list. Tools like b4 can help here. However, there's no need to repost
>> patches *only* to add the tags. The upstream maintainer will do that for
>> tags received on the version they apply.
>> 
>> Please read:
>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.12-rc3/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L577
>> 
>> If a tag was not added on purpose, please state why and what changed.
>
> And now I noticed you used b4, so I really do not get how the tags can
> be missing here. :/

Sorry, that's totally my fault here, I forgot to run 'b4 trailers -u' before
sending... :/ And I don't think it's part of the prep checks?

I will send a new version with the proper trailers.

Antonin

-- 
Antonin Godard, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 05:31:32PM +0100, Antonin Godard wrote:
> > And now I noticed you used b4, so I really do not get how the tags can
> > be missing here. :/
> 
> Sorry, that's totally my fault here, I forgot to run 'b4 trailers -u' before
> sending... :/ And I don't think it's part of the prep checks?

Mostly, because there's no clear picture of how this would work reliably. All
other checks are on a "ran since modifications to the series" basis, but this
one would have to be time-based.

Should it check if the trailer updates have been run in the past XX minutes
(and how long should that XX be?).


-K

Hi Konstantin,

On Tue Mar 11, 2025 at 7:34 PM CET, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 05:31:32PM +0100, Antonin Godard wrote:
>> > And now I noticed you used b4, so I really do not get how the tags can
>> > be missing here. :/
>> 
>> Sorry, that's totally my fault here, I forgot to run 'b4 trailers -u' before
>> sending... :/ And I don't think it's part of the prep checks?
>
> Mostly, because there's no clear picture of how this would work reliably. All
> other checks are on a "ran since modifications to the series" basis, but this
> one would have to be time-based.
>
> Should it check if the trailer updates have been run in the past XX minutes
> (and how long should that XX be?).

Had some thoughts about this the past few days.

What about checking if it was run at least once between vX and vX+1? Maybe
during the `b4 send` command? In case it wasn't run, give a hint/warning to the
user before proceeding?

This could also be enforced with an b4 config option like
b4.force-trailers-update - either set by the user or the project configuration.
Not so sure about this one though...

Now if I were to speak for myself, I would love to have an option that just
fetches the new trailers during `b4 send` and errors out / warns me about
it if there's anything new that isn't part of my series. Which could be also
ignored with --ignore-trailer-errors or something like that, in any case.

Antonin

-- 
Antonin Godard, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com