[PATCH u-boot, v2019.04-aspeed-openbmc v1 1/1] ARM: dts: Aspeed: Add Facebook common dts

Andrew Jeffery andrew at codeconstruct.com.au
Fri May 17 09:36:54 AEST 2024


On Wed, 2024-05-15 at 21:37 -0500, Patrick Williams wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 10:30:30AM +0930, Andrew Jeffery wrote:
> > On Wed, 2024-05-15 at 17:41 +0800, Peter Yin wrote:
> > > Hi Andrew,
> > >      Thank you for your reply, Do you mean something like this?
> > > compatible = "facebook,harma-bmc", "facebook,minerva-bmc", "aspeed,ast2600";
> > > 
> > 
> > Right. It removes the nebulous "common" concept that might be upset by
> > future changes.
> 
> I agree that just "common" is probably not appropriate because this
> device tree only covers ast2600-based platforms.
> 
> We are trying to design our BMC hardware such that at a u-boot level,
> the same device tree can be used for most of our platforms.
> 

Seems sensible, but does this common design point have a name?
Otherwise it feels like a "coincidently similar" relationship, which
seems a bit ill-defined. Better to enumerate the specific platforms in
that case.

>   This is
> partially so we can avoid having to add new changes for u-boot for every
> new platform.

Not having to write new drivers or define drastically different
devicetrees feels like a useful goal. I don't feel tacking on a new
compatible here is particularly onerous (not that it even matters in
practice if you select only this specific devicetree in the u-boot
build).

Just wondering if we can avoid nebulous concepts, and rather keep
things concrete.

> 
> Should we do something like "facebook,ast2600-standard"?
> 

I guess I'm trying to guard-rail the discussion from the position of
the compatible strings should be documented in the DT schemas. Is this
something that would pass review upstream?

Andrew


More information about the openbmc mailing list