вт, 6 черв. 2023 р. о 22:47 Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> пише: > > On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 10:40:53PM +0300, Svyatoslav Ryhel wrote: > > > > > > 6 червня 2023 р. 22:19:44 GMT+03:00, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> > > написав(-ла): > > >On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 10:18:47AM +0300, Svyatoslav Ryhel wrote: > > > > > >> The ASUS Transformer T30 family are 2-in-1 detachable tablets > > >> and AiO developed by ASUS that run the Android operating system > > >> (TF600T runs Windows RT and P1801-T runs Android and Windows). > > >> The T30 Transformers feature a 10.1-inch display (apart P1801-T), > > >> an Nvidia Tegra 3 quad-core chip, 1/2 GB of RAM, and 16/32 GB of > > >> storage. Transformers board derives from Nvidia Cardhu development > > >> board. > > >> > > >> This patch brings support for 7 known Transformer devices: > > >> - ASUS Transformer Prime TF201 > > >> - ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T/TF300TG/TF300TL > > >> - ASUS VivoTab RT TF600T (Windows RT based) > > >> - ASUS Transformer Infinity TF700T > > >> - ASUS Transformer AiO P1801-T > > >> > > >> Tested-by: Andreas Westman Dorcsak <hed...@yahoo.com> # all devices > > >> Signed-off-by: Svyatoslav Ryhel <clamo...@gmail.com> > > >> --- > > >> arch/arm/dts/Makefile | 7 + > > >> arch/arm/dts/tegra30-asus-p1801-t.dts | 17 + > > >> arch/arm/dts/tegra30-asus-tf201.dts | 9 + > > >> arch/arm/dts/tegra30-asus-tf300t.dts | 18 + > > >> arch/arm/dts/tegra30-asus-tf300tg.dts | 9 + > > >> arch/arm/dts/tegra30-asus-tf300tl.dts | 9 + > > >> arch/arm/dts/tegra30-asus-tf600t.dts | 89 +++++ > > >> arch/arm/dts/tegra30-asus-tf700t.dts | 13 + > > >> arch/arm/dts/tegra30-asus-transformer.dtsi | 211 ++++++++++ > > >> arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra30/Kconfig | 5 + > > >> board/asus/transformer-t30/Kconfig | 23 ++ > > >> board/asus/transformer-t30/MAINTAINERS | 6 + > > >> board/asus/transformer-t30/Makefile | 11 + > > >> .../pinmux-config-transformer.h | 365 ++++++++++++++++++ > > >> .../transformer-t30/transformer-t30-spl.c | 41 ++ > > >> board/asus/transformer-t30/transformer-t30.c | 201 ++++++++++ > > >> configs/p1801-t.config | 2 + > > >> configs/tf201.config | 2 + > > >> configs/tf300t.config | 2 + > > >> configs/tf300tg.config | 2 + > > >> configs/tf300tl.config | 2 + > > >> configs/tf600t.config | 4 + > > >> configs/tf700t.config | 2 + > > >> configs/transformer_t30_defconfig | 85 ++++ > > > > > >Sorry for not noticing this part sooner. Looking in the kernel, > > >arch/{riscv,powerpc}/Makefile both provide examples of how to automate > > >generating the resulting defconfigs directly. I think we really want > > >that, and also the config fragments need to be listed in the MAINTAINERS > > >file. > > > > Not sure if adding this is a good idea, plus adding fragments into > > MAINTAINERS may cause even more issues. Iirc buildman uses it as a > > config source and defining multiple fragments may fail not only for > > boards under question, but those, already existing in u-boot, as well. > > If this causes buildman problems then we'll need to figure out > something, but it shouldn't.
Adding fragments into MAINTAINERS does not cause issues but seems to not have any effect either. > > > Issue is not in the arch dir to tweak arch's makefile, fragments are > > used by some boards and issue lays in omitting their existence by > > system of autobuild. > > Yes, and I'd like to set some good examples for the first config > fragments we're adding as I suspect you're the first person to notice > this works (as a feature not a happenstance) and others will make more > use if it for more than a few changes. So I'd like to get things going > in the right direction. May you specify more, what do you exactly want from me to change. > > > > >I also worry that none of these other configs will be caught by buildmn > > >and so won't be in CI at all, just the base. Which isn't a big problem, > > >yet, but could be as more people use config fragments. I'm just noting > > >this secondary part and not saying you need to fix that as well. > > > > > > > Buildman indeed is not catching any fragments, which already caused me > > issues since defconfigs are not as generic as I would like to (since else I > > get a big chunk of checks failed). > > > > A good solution might be to tweak buildman to accept fragments if any are > > defined in the dedicated field of MAINTAINERS file. But that would be a > > major patchset to implement on the entire project scale. > > Yes, I'm not sure how best to deal with fragments to start with, for > buildman. But we don't need to solve that today for this series, > either. > Does this patchset require any additional changes to be accepted? Have in mind that most likely there will be more patchsets for transformers. Best regards, Svyatoslav R. > -- > Tom