Rensas ra2l1 support#77589
Conversation
zephyrbot
added
area: Flash
platform: Renesas RA
zephyrbot
requested review from
KhiemNguyenT,
de-nordic,
duynguyenxa,
soburi and
thaoluonguw
avolkov-1221
force-pushed
the
rensas-ra2l1-support
branch
5 times, most recently
from
a17f6af to
75c852e
Compare
avolkov-1221
force-pushed
the
rensas-ra2l1-support
branch
from
75c852e to
5aa3de4
Compare
Add basic support for Renesas RA2L1 SOC series. Signed-off-by: Andrey VOLKOV <andrey.volkov@munic.io>
avolkov-1221
force-pushed
the
rensas-ra2l1-support
branch
from
5aa3de4 to
c8f278a
Compare
Add initial flash controller support for Renesas RA2L1. Signed-off-by: Andrey VOLKOV <andrey.volkov@munic.io>
Add inital support for the Renesas EK-RA2L1 evaluation board. Signed-off-by: Andrey VOLKOV <andrey.volkov@munic.io>
@nordicjm ping... |
Board need a UART, review stands |
| - name: ra2l1 | ||
| socs: | ||
| - name: r7fa2l1a9xxfp | ||
| - name: r7fa2l1abxxfp |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As with other models, please specify the official model number here.
In this PR case that addressed EK-RA2L1, R7FA2L1AB2DFP would be good.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As with other models, please specify the official model number here. In this PR case that addressed EK-RA2L1, R7FA2L1AB2DFP would be good.
It's already official name. Using the temperature grade in names of the chips is not a best idea IMO. The chips R7FA2L1AB2DFP, R7FA2L1AB2CFP, R7FA2L1AB3DFP and R7FA2L1AB3CFP are the same from the code point of view. If you incorrectly solder one chip in place of another, your code will work as is (in the consumer grade range) and will never know about the wrong chip. Or, vice-versa, if you provide 2 versions of devices: industrial and consumer, then you all need to support 2 versions of identical device trees instead of one for the same device. Just because you are using different SOCs names.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since the custom of defining the complete model number itself has already been established here, please follow that custom first. I cannot allow irregularities in this model only. And at least I can't say the current custom is wrong. If necessary, please submit a separate PR to comprehensively correct all SoCs.
I understand the raised issue as that is asking about not accepting or not accepting the patch but which custom is better.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that this was already discussed in pr for i2c at24 compatible devices (#73136) and using device temperature range or package was not something considered as good idea, as it only multiplied identifiers of devices that would have the same software/hardware characteristics as seen by software.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have split this issue into a separate issue. As I wrote there, I think it would be convenient to follow the FSP rules.
| Supported Features | ||
| ================== | ||
|
|
||
| The Renesas ``ek_ra2l1`` board configuration supports the following |
|
@avolkov-1221 Any updates? |
|
@avolkov-1221 we need to get it done for v4.0. The merging window will be closed by 08 Nov. It's appreciated to get this PR merged in-time. |
Who can set the deadline? I assume you have a requirement by your company business, If you must finish the task by the deadline, I suggest making another PR to solve this issue. |
@soburi I just thought that can help to get attention of the author, and it's a proposal. I also explained it in the message. |
If it's a suggestion, there's no problem. However, I'm worried that it might be misleaderble current timing and review situation. I think it would be better to remove it for now and then consider how to respond.
Okay. |
|
@avolkov-1221 it's about 2 months , but the PR is not moved. We would like to take over this so that RA2L1 board support will be upstream in early of Jan.2025. cc @soburi @de-nordic . |
|
This pull request has been marked as stale because it has been open (more than) 60 days with no activity. Remove the stale label or add a comment saying that you would like to have the label removed otherwise this pull request will automatically be closed in 14 days. Note, that you can always re-open a closed pull request at any time. |
7 participants
This is a cutted down version of the original #75740 PR. To simplify the review and the subsequent merge of drivers with other members of the RA family, this version contains only the most basic RA2L1-related parts.