From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (woodpecker.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12E103043AF; Tue, 11 Nov 2025 11:41:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=140.211.166.183 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762861303; cv=none; b=tmZg0heZR57EsWTBHK4NLuwImvWXN0oRMMRmwfYwzlZx7V8jWAAhkeNtAfoJ+3IXWnuWNUiZRO4q8neP3/w+TR6e3bZcYXUc241IftDejEexsPhe2ceagNqiX1Akha2oj1vi0k7h+FGNiwTzs88uw5Rpy/1tlgrwE0M7Ii7bL38= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762861303; c=relaxed/simple; bh=NsifAaH4IJiJWQHRSEMOi7t8dMMrh3UzrvwkyayXbpY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=CoLeSjX12k/OiKJyoLYnOPWWq5jH9QUP6CAC9DrZ/fLH9gSNEhkWvOUUVy39UNGfsykad2OREDbkbqnPZU56qPqJfIHqYsWFM2ai4ovi5JgVACm3c8OJXTlgJBzn3yn8oqwoeil+sJvlhHgPfoofkAKo2Aazqsvjin4nN2mdMq0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gentoo.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gentoo.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=140.211.166.183 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gentoo.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gentoo.org Received: from localhost (unknown [116.232.48.119]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange secp256r1 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: dlan) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EF2F1340F5F; Tue, 11 Nov 2025 11:41:40 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2025 19:41:33 +0800 From: Yixun Lan To: Krzysztof Kozlowski Cc: Michael Opdenacker , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Paul Walmsley , Palmer Dabbelt , Albert Ou , Alexandre Ghiti , Yangyu Chen , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, spacemit@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Troy Mitchell Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: riscv: spacemit: Add OrangePi R2S board Message-ID: <20251111114133-GYA1677599@gentoo.org> References: <20251110220641.1751392-1-michael.opdenacker@rootcommit.com> <20251110220641.1751392-2-michael.opdenacker@rootcommit.com> <20251111-inquisitive-ambrosial-chicken-861542@kuoka> <20251111101149-GYE1651402@gentoo.org> <1d469324-84c8-4b5d-ae68-d77e3c822656@rootcommit.com> <2eb5ea0b-d071-4e17-abc8-7db5c78919f2@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2eb5ea0b-d071-4e17-abc8-7db5c78919f2@kernel.org> Hi All, On 11:34 Tue 11 Nov , Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 11/11/2025 11:29, Michael Opdenacker wrote: > > Greetings > > > > Thanks one more time for the reviews! > > > > On 11/11/25 11:13, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 11/11/2025 11:11, Yixun Lan wrote: > >>> Hi Krzysztof, > >>> > >>> On 08:43 Tue 11 Nov , Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 10:06:48PM +0000, michael.opdenacker@rootcommit.com wrote: > >>>>> From: Michael Opdenacker > >>>>> > >>>>> Document the compatible string for the OrangePi R2S board [1], which > >>>>> is marketed as using the Ky X1 SoC but is in fact identical to > >>> Maybe, just say it "same" to clarify the ambiguity? > >> What is exactly "same"? Same die? Or same blocks/pieces? Whichever you > >> choose please make it very explicit. > > > > Maybe Troy Mitchell from Spacemit can shed light on this question. > > > > Anyway, I could use the same wording as in this commit introducing > > "OrangePi RV2": > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/arch?id=bab8dea259100a99e047fd11a48940b229d30031 > > > > "The board is described as using the Ky X1 SoC, which, based on > > available downstream sources and testing, appears to be identical or > > very closely related to the SpacemiT K1 SoC". sorry for bringing confusion in previous series, we had no further discussion on this.. > > > > What do you think? > > This clearly suggests they are not identical thus you should have also > dedicated compatible. Let me then precise, I thought it is obvious, that > except writing it more detailed in commit msg, you also need proper > binding expressing this. If this is not the same die and they look > compatible, then usually it means you need a compatible. > to be explicit, the Xy X1 has same die, same packaging as SpacemiT K1, so we should not introduce new compatible in the SoC level, but a new board compatible in patch [1/2] is ok to me I hope this clarify this issue.. -- Yixun Lan (dlan)