Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: document AL02-Cx and AL03-C2 boards based on IPQ9574 family

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 26/07/2023 07:03, Sridharan S N wrote:
> 
> On 7/20/2023 3:18 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> On 20.07.2023 10:49, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 20/07/2023 10:45, Sridharan S N wrote:
>>>> Document the below listed (Reference Design Platform) RDP boards based on IPQ9574
>>>> family of SoCs.
>>>>
>>>> AL02-C3  - rdp437
>>>> AL02-C7  - rdp433-mht-phy
>>>> AL02-C10 - rdp433-mht-switch
>>>> AL02-C11 - rdp467
>>>> AL02-C12 - rdp455
>>>> AL02-C13 - rdp459
>>>> AL02-C15 - rdp457
>>>> AL02-C16 - rdp456
>>>> AL02-C17 - rdp469
>>>> AL02-C19 - rdp461
>>>> AL03-C2  - rdp458
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Sridharan S N <quic_sridsn@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>>   .../devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml         | 20 +++++++++++++++++++
>>>>   1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
>>>> index dd66fd872c31..d992261da691 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
>>>> @@ -89,10 +89,20 @@ description: |
>>>>           adp
>>>>           ap-al01-c1
>>>>           ap-al02-c2
>>>> +        ap-al02-c3
>>>>           ap-al02-c6
>>>>           ap-al02-c7
>>>>           ap-al02-c8
>>>>           ap-al02-c9
>>>> +        ap-al02-c10
>>>> +        ap-al02-c11
>>>> +        ap-al02-c12
>>>> +        ap-al02-c13
>>>> +        ap-al02-c15
>>>> +        ap-al02-c16
>>>> +        ap-al02-c17
>>>> +        ap-al02-c19
>>> Why? I asked once, but there was no feedback from Qualcomm.
>>>
>>> Why do we need to do this? What's the point?
>> Another question would be, whether these boards are just one-off test
>> prototypes of which there exist like 5-10 units, or are they actually
>> going to be supported and useful.
>>
>> If it's the former, I don't think it makes sense to keep the device
>> trees upstream.
>>
>> Konrad
> 
> These are all not test rdps and each rdps has its own configurations. 
> IPQ9574 has four pcie instances and one QDSP processor. Not all rdps use 
> all of the interfaces and it will vary for each rdp. In next version , 
> will post with each rdp's configuration explicitly


So still no answer why do we need to list it as possible boards.
Especially that it messes with compatible style, because c[1-9] looks
like board version.

I suggest don't add these board types and drop existing ones.


Best regards,
Krzysztof