On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 at 08:53, Komal Bajaj <quic_kbajaj@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No HTML mail on kernel mailing lists, please. Some developers can have
'MIME => junk' mail filters.
And replying to the HTML mail messes up quotation level.
On 11/4/2023 3:52 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:Then it is probably "Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. Robotics RB3gen2"?
On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 at 20:49, Komal Bajaj <quic_kbajaj@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Add qcm6490 devicetree file for QCM6490 IDP and QCM6490 RB3
platform. QCM6490 is derived from SC7280 meant for various
form factor including IoT.
Supported features are, as of now:
* Debug UART
* eMMC (only in IDP)
* USB
Co-developed-by: Naina Mehta <quic_nainmeht@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Naina Mehta <quic_nainmeht@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Komal Bajaj <quic_kbajaj@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/Makefile | 2 +
arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcm6490-idp.dts | 33 ++
.../boot/dts/qcom/qcm6490-iot-common.dtsi | 291 ++++++++++++++++++
arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcm6490-rb3.dts | 26 ++
4 files changed, 352 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcm6490-idp.dts
create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcm6490-iot-common.dtsi
create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcm6490-rb3.dts
[...]
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcm6490-rb3.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcm6490-rb3.dts
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..5b4c2826ac5c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcm6490-rb3.dts
@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
+/*
+ * Copyright (c) 2023 Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. All rights reserved.
+ */
+
+/dts-v1/;
+
+/* PM7250B is configured to use SID8/9 */
+#define PM7250B_SID 8
+#define PM7250B_SID1 9
+
+#include "qcm6490-iot-common.dtsi"
+#include "pm7250b.dtsi"
+
+/ {
+ model = "Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. QCM6490 RB3";
Is this a marketing name of the platform?
Sorry for the confusion, QCS6490 RB3gen2 is the correct marketing name for this board.
Will correct this in the next patchset.
+ compatible = "qcom,qcm6490-rb3", "qcom,qcm6490";Then it is "embedded". We should probably update existing
chassis-type = ?
No, this won't be needed as it is an evaluation board and will be used for multiple use cases.
So, we don't want to mark it to any specific type.
dragonboards/RB boards to have this type too.