Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] dt-binding: ARM: samsung: Add Samsung Exynos8855
Ivaylo Ivanov <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-samsung-soc,org.kernel.vger.linux-devicetree,org.kernel.vger.linux-gpio,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 6/27/26 20:12, Alim Akhtar wrote: > Add Samsung Exynos8855 smdk board to documentation > > Signed-off-by: Alim Akhtar <[email protected]> > --- > .../devicetree/bindings/arm/samsung/samsung-boards.yaml | 6 ++++++ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/samsung/samsung-boards.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/samsung/samsung-boards.yaml > index 753b3ba1b607..273464400477 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/samsung/samsung-boards.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/samsung/samsung-boards.yaml > @@ -235,6 +235,12 @@ properties: > - winlink,e850-96 # WinLink E850-96 > - const: samsung,exynos850 > > + - description: Exynos8855 based boards > + items: > + - enum: > + - samsung,exynos8855-smdk # Samsung SMDK > + - const: samsung,exynos8855 Is there any particular reason for using "exynos8855" rather than the commercial name - exynos1580? We've already established using the latter naming scheme as a convention (e.g. exynos3830 -> exynos850, exynos9830 -> exynos990) rather than the development model numbers, so I don't think breaking that will help anyone with the already painful model number confusion. Best regards, Ivaylo > + > - description: Exynos8895 based boards > items: > - enum: