firefly-rk3399: move to rockchip64 family

[chainsx]

Description

1. Firefly-RK3399: move to rockchip64 family
2. The legacy kernel of firefly-rk3399 seems to be unable to work properly, so it will be removed.

AR-2310

How Has This Been Tested?

• Almost all hardware functions(HDMI, WiFi, BT, GbE, USB...).
• System startup.

Checklist:

• My code follows the style guidelines of this project
• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• My changes generate no new warnings
• Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules

[ARC-MX]

why?

[chainsx]

why?

The media kernel lacks maintainers for maintenance, and I believe that the number of families should be reduced as much as possible.

[igorpecovnik]

[🐳|🔨] Failed to parse unidiff for file /armbian/patch/kernel/archive/rockchip64-6.8/board-firefly-rk3399-dts.patch(:1): 'Unexpected hunk found: @@ -27,42 +25,7 @@'

Error: arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-firefly.dts:582.6-7 syntax error

[chainsx]

[🐳|🔨] Failed to parse unidiff for file /armbian/patch/kernel/archive/rockchip64-6.8/board-firefly-rk3399-dts.patch(:1): 'Unexpected hunk found: @@ -27,42 +25,7 @@'

Error: arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-firefly.dts:582.6-7 syntax error

OK, I will fix it.

[rpardini]

board-firefly-rk3399-dts.patch contains crap (no wonder, considering where it came from) and can't be correctly rewritten

[chainsx]

board-firefly-rk3399-dts.patch contains crap (no wonder, considering where it came from) and can't be correctly rewritten

This patch is organized by me based on the patches file of the media family.

[rpardini]

Didn't mean to offend -- I meant media has carried malformed patch chunks, which get improperly applied, for years -- but sincerely, what is the point of patching mainline to look like a vendor crossover here? let's just go with mainline, and port over specific (small) changes if needed...

[chainsx]

Didn't mean to offend -- I meant media has carried malformed patch chunks, which get improperly applied, for years -- but sincerely, what is the point of patching mainline to look like a vendor crossover here? let's just go with mainline, and port over specific (small) changes if needed...

I understand what you mean, but the situation before this was even worse.:
#5896

I also don't know what the situation is. Based on the mainline device tree, the device cannot even boot.

[rpardini]

I also don't know what the situation is. Based on the mainline device tree, the device cannot even boot.

Oh wow. In this case I'll skip rockchip64/ege from rewrite batch (ref #6455 - which is just patch bureocracy), and let you handle this calmy. In the current state of main, most of the patch gets ignored due the the malformed chunk and its fallout, so in the end it's mostly just mainline and some alias changes.

[chainsx]

I also don't know what the situation is. Based on the mainline device tree, the device cannot even boot.

Oh wow. In this case I'll skip rockchip64/ege from rewrite batch (ref #6455 - which is just patch bureocracy), and let you handle this calmy. In the current state of main, most of the patch gets ignored due the the malformed chunk and its fallout, so in the end it's mostly just mainline and some alias changes.

I will handle the issue as soon as possible.

[rpardini]

Ooops, actually, patching "works", but building fails:

Error: arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-firefly.dts:582.6-7 syntax error
FATAL ERROR: Unable to parse input tree