From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: robertcnelson@gmail.com (Robert Nelson) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 08:52:10 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: dts: am57xx-beagle-x15: Add support for rev B1 In-Reply-To: References: <20160902090600.27262-1-nm@ti.com> <20160902090600.27262-3-nm@ti.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote: > + Robert Nelson > > On Friday 02 September 2016 02:36 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote: > > I understand that there are existing users of A2 boards and so we simply > cannot remove support for those boards (at least yet). > > But given the small numbers of A2 boards, its also quite likely that we > will not have enough test coverage for those boards. Especially as years > pass and there are fewer and fewer people with access to working A2 boards. I have a A1, A2 and a B1, that i use for testing for beagleboard.org... The A1 use to be ssh-accessible for developers, but since moving to my new house, I haven't "yet" got that one setup for developers. Right now i'm using the A2 & B1 for development of our default images. Jason Kridner also has a number of boards > Given that, aren't we increasing the chance of A2 breakage by creating a > common file - this essentially necessitates that any change to > am57xx-beagle-x15-common.dtsi is also tested on A2. > > Instead, it seems to be easier for maintenance and safer overall if the > older version has a file of its own which can be kept alone. > > Also, how about renaming the existing dts to am57xx-beagle-x15-reva2.dts > and let the production version be called am57xx-beagle-x15.dts? Surely > this will cause some inconvenience to A2 users. But there are few users > of those and it might be more intuitive for the majority users if the > file for production version is without a specific version string > attached. Just a thought though, not sure about it myself either. Nak, let's NOT do that to A2 users. The am57xx-beagle-x15.dts went mainline in v3.19, u-boot installed on devices would need to be updated and this would make bisecting a pain. ;) Side note: A1/A2 boards (most i believe) did not have the eeprom programmed with an ID. Where as B1's have a default eeprom for identification: https://github.com/RobertCNelson/boot-scripts/blob/master/device/x15/X15_B1-eeprom.dump Regards, -- Robert Nelson https://rcn-ee.com/