[PATCH v5 4/7] board: asus: transformer: add ASUS Transformer T30 family support

[Svyatoslav Ryhel]

вт, 6 черв. 2023 р. о 22:47 Tom Rini <trini at 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 <trini at 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 <hedmoo at yahoo.com> # all devices
> > >> Signed-off-by: Svyatoslav Ryhel <clamor95 at 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