Including a board dts file is not the right way to represent the hierarchical
nature of the board dts files and to create a dts file for another variant of
an ancestor board. However, a few boards and their variants (ab)used this
approach, so let's clean that up by converting the common ancestors into dtsi
files, and by adding separate board-variant dts files.
No functional changes are introduced, which was validated by decompiling and
comparing all affected board dtb files before and after these changes. In
more detail, the affected dtb files have some of their blocks shuffled around
a bit and some of their phandles have different values, as a result of the
changes to the order in which the building blocks from the parent dtsi files
are included, but they effectively remain the same as the originals.
The only perceivable introduced change is the turning of "roc-rk3328-cc" into
"ROC-RK3328-CC", which is the model name of one of the affected boards, which
was performed to match the styling of the official board name.
As a side note, due to the nature of introduced changes, this commit is best
viewed using "-B80%/80% -M20% -C5%" as the set of options for git-log(1).
Signed-off-by: Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/f3d789c14fe34a53327cac03cd3837e530e21f5c.1728937091.git.dsimic@manjaro.org
Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
The nanopi4 boards differ primarily in their power trees, with the main
5V and 3.3V rails having very different topologies on the smaller USB-C
powered boards vs. the 12V-powered T4, as well as minor variation in
other regulators related to various external connectors.
Additionally, the recovery key is only present on the T4 - ADC_IN1 is
simply pulled high and not exposed on the other boards - and the lowest
common denominator for MMC speed is actually HS200 according to the
vendor DTs.
Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
There are a number of subtle differences between the nanopi4 variants,
and where they disagree, the common DTSI currently follows the details
of NanoPi M4. In order to improve matters even more, let's add a
separate DTS for the M4 to which we can start splitting things out
appropriately. The third variant, NanoPi NEO4, is a lot closer to the M4
than either is to the larger T4, so arguably could get away with just
sharing the M4 DT for now (plus I have neither of the smaller boards to
actually test with).
CC: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
CC: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
