[lkml]   [2017]   [Jan]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/4] ARM: dts: mt7623: Add initial Geek Force support
(resend, hit the wrong reply button)

On 10/01/2017 10:48, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Hi,
> Am 10.01.2017 um 08:00 schrieb John Crispin:
>> On 08/01/2017 14:30, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>> Andreas Färber (4):
>>> Documentation: devicetree: Add vendor prefix for AsiaRF
>>> Documentation: devicetree: arm: mediatek: Add Geek Force board
>>> ARM: dts: mt7623: Add Geek Force config
>>> MAINTAINERS: Extend ARM/Mediatek SoC support section
>> Hi,
>> i need to NAK this series. the asiarf board is nothing more than the
>> official MTK EVB with AsiaRF written on it. this board is already
>> supported by linux (arch/arm/boot/dts/mt7623-evb.dts) please extend the
>> EVB dts file nstead of adding a duplicate and letting the original
> Well, I disagree.

reading the rest of the email you seem to be quite agro about this.

> First of all I'm not letting "the original" bitrot, because I have
> nothing to do with that .dts! If anyone is to blame for letting it
> bitrot since February 2016, pick your own nose:

what should i pick my nose about ? i made mt7623 work, then waited for
4.10-rc1 to be out for clk-mt2701 so that i can continue adding the
missing support

> Second, I have no Mediatek documentation or even picture to identify any
> similarities between my board and that Mediatek EVB, so no, I can't hack
> on the -evb.dts file. I wrote my .dts from scratch, not even having
> access to /proc/device-tree on its 3.10 kernel for comparison.

ok, that info is most likely under NDA

> Third, by your argumentation we shouldn't be adding, e.g., Odroid .dts
> files either because they were based on a Samsung SMDK, or .dts files
> for Amlogic TV boxes because they're almost identical to reference
> designs, etc.
> Users need to know which .dts file to choose, so having a sane .dts
> filename is warranted. Depending on how similar they are, one could
> either #include the -evb.dts or factor out a shared .dtsi, but that
> takes us back to the previous point of hardly anyone having access to
> EVB information to identify such a subset. Therefore duplicating trivial
> nodes is the method of choice for all practical purposes - mt7623.dtsi
> is getting reused just fine.

in that case add a dtsi file for the EVB and include it in your geek
board.dts and only update the compat string.

> Comparing our two .dts files, mine has two more UART nodes enabled, the
> U-Boot bootloader's baudrate set to actually get serial output, a
> different board compatible string for identification, and I chose the
> new dual-licensing header that is being requested for new DT files.

1) at the time we adde this the uart support was not ready
2) the bootloader i am using is a custom built one hence the random baudrate
3) you can just updae the license if you want to, no problem

> For lack of schematics I figured out UART1 by testing - continuity tests
> for GND, console=ttySx,115200n8 and trial-and-error for RX/TX. Obviously
> I can't do that for a board I don't have access to.
> UART2 and UART0 pins were clear, but only UART2 was obvious from ttyMT2.

you do have the EVB directly in front of you

> Do you actually have access to a Geek Force board yourself, or what are
> you basing your claims on? Mine looks different from the Indiegogo
> picture and thus has different identification from that on
> (WS3301, MT7623N RFB_V10).

i dont need the geek board as i have the EVB and they are identical
according to MTK

> If you confirm the EVB's baudrate I can happily send that part your way.
> I've seen 921600 on the Helio X20 96board for instance.

see above

> Also, none of what you've said justifies NAK'ing patch 4/4, which
> applies to any mt7* and arm64 .dts, including yours.

agreed, i never even mentioned 4/4

> While we're at it, I noticed that mainline has a "mediatek,mt7623-eth"
> network driver but no corresponding .dtsi node. Talk about bitrot...

the idea is that we work together to make thins optimal. this is not a
you or is right. this is about the FOSS peer review process. please dont
be so agro.

to me it seems suboptimal to support 2 dts files for the same board.


> Regards,
> Andreas

 \ /
  Last update: 2017-01-10 11:20    [W:0.070 / U:2.760 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site