Re: [PATCH 3/4] arm64: dts: add support for A4 based Amlogic BA400

From: Xianwei Zhao <xianwei.zhao@amlogic.com>
To: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>,
	Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@baylibre.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] arm64: dts: add support for A4 based Amlogic BA400
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 11:04:10 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3d2e488f-6191-4844-b5a7-2563898d4670@amlogic.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFBinCAvT6-gfZQH--AVJAxiVM9bv5=agYzJ-u3NZUGFvp2vZA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Martin,
    Thanks for your review.

On 2024/3/13 01:29, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> [ EXTERNAL EMAIL ]
> 
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 10:19 AM Xianwei Zhao via B4 Relay
> <devnull+xianwei.zhao.amlogic.com@kernel.org> wrote:
> [...]
>> +               apb@fe000000 {
> Node names need to be generic - since this is a bug it needs to be:
>    bus@fe000000 {
> Or if you want to make it clear how this bus is called then you can use:
>    apb: bus@fe000000 {
> 
Will fix it.
> The same comment applies to the amlogic-a5.dtsi patch (4/4).
> And while here, I fully agree with Jerome: having a bit more details
> would be great so we can judge on whether a common .dtsi makes sense.
> For this it would be helpful to know how many IP blocks those two SoCs
> have in common and how many are different.
> 
They are mostly the same, but the follow-on series is unclear, and I 
would like to wait for the follow-on chips to come out before 
considering a merger with common dtsi file.
> 
> Best regards,
> Martin

_______________________________________________
linux-amlogic mailing list
linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-amlogic