The HINLINK H28K is a dual-gigabit SBC based on the RK3528 SoC.
Add devicetree binding documentation for it.

Signed-off-by: Chukun Pan <amadeus@jmu.edu.cn>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml | 5 +++++
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
index d496421dbd87..8d6e2b28e51a 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
@@ -718,6 +718,11 @@ properties:
           - const: hardkernel,odroid-m2
           - const: rockchip,rk3588s
 
+      - description: HINLINK H28K
+        items:
+          - const: hinlink,h28k
+          - const: rockchip,rk3528
+
       - description: HINLINK H66K / H68K
         items:
           - enum:
-- 
2.25.1

On 01/12/2025 11:00, Chukun Pan wrote:
> The HINLINK H28K is a dual-gigabit SBC based on the RK3528 SoC.
> Add devicetree binding documentation for it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chukun Pan <amadeus@jmu.edu.cn>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml | 5 +++++
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
> index d496421dbd87..8d6e2b28e51a 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
> @@ -718,6 +718,11 @@ properties:
>            - const: hardkernel,odroid-m2
>            - const: rockchip,rk3588s
>  
> +      - description: HINLINK H28K
> +        items:
> +          - const: hinlink,h28k
> +          - const: rockchip,rk3528
> +

Just squash these two binding patches. Way too much churn. Anyway, looks
like duplicate - two devices with same model name. You have entire
commit msg to explain that.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Hi,

> Just squash these two binding patches. Way too much churn.

However, they are different SBCs manufactured by different companies:

HINLINK H28K - Shenzhen HINLINK manufactures
MangoPi M28K - Beijing Widora manufactures

So should I squash them into a patch?

> Anyway, looks like duplicate - two devices with same model name.

These two SBCs are indeed very similar, both in name and configuration.
So I put them in one series. Perhaps splitting them into two series to
avoid confusion would have been better?

> You have entire commit msg to explain that.

Thanks,
Chukun

On 01/12/2025 14:01, Chukun Pan wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>> Just squash these two binding patches. Way too much churn.
> 
> However, they are different SBCs manufactured by different companies:

Does not matter, you update same file doing almost the same.

> 
> HINLINK H28K - Shenzhen HINLINK manufactures
> MangoPi M28K - Beijing Widora manufactures
> 
> So should I squash them into a patch?
> 
>> Anyway, looks like duplicate - two devices with same model name.
> 
> These two SBCs are indeed very similar, both in name and configuration.
> So I put them in one series. Perhaps splitting them into two series to
> avoid confusion would have been better?

No, even more confusion. Look what I wrote:

"You have entire commit msg to explain that."

Best regards,
Krzysztof