On 20.07.2023 10:49, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 20/07/2023 10:45, Sridharan S N wrote:Another question would be, whether these boards are just one-off test
Document the below listed (Reference Design Platform) RDP boards based on IPQ9574Why? I asked once, but there was no feedback from Qualcomm.
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 do we need to do this? What's the point?
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