From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752041AbeEMUxO convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 May 2018 16:53:14 -0400 Received: from gloria.sntech.de ([95.129.55.99]:36964 "EHLO gloria.sntech.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751438AbeEMUxN (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 May 2018 16:53:13 -0400 From: Heiko =?ISO-8859-1?Q?St=FCbner?= To: Tao Huang Cc: Elaine Zhang , mark.rutland@arm.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, ulf.hansson@linaro.org, khilman@kernel.org, xxx@rock-chips.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xf@rock-chips.com, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, Finley Xiao , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, wxt@rock-chips.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 11/13] dt-bindings: power: add PX30 SoCs header for power-domain Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 22:53:00 +0200 Message-ID: <1550439.0mAU4944n0@diego> In-Reply-To: <9c9606f0-5c97-1a6e-a3c5-f6380c16fea4@rock-chips.com> References: <1526009458-28579-1-git-send-email-zhangqing@rock-chips.com> <508694354.7btLQf7nsA@phil> <9c9606f0-5c97-1a6e-a3c5-f6380c16fea4@rock-chips.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, Am Sonntag, 13. Mai 2018, 17:18:12 CEST schrieb Tao Huang: > Hi Heiko: > > On 2018年05月12日 06:11, Heiko Stuebner wrote: > > Here I have a naming question. When looking at the vendor kernel > > it looks like the px30 is largely related to the rk3326. > > (rk3326.dtsi includeing the px30.dtsi) > > > > What is the reason for basing the naming on the px30 this time? And could > > we possibly keep to rkXXXX names for the basic things in the kernel, thus > > keeping the pxXX as second name, like with the other px-variants before? > > PX30 and RK3326 are different chips. PX30 has more features. You can simply > think that RK3326 is a subset of PX30. The RK3326 is more like a PX30 > derivative chip. This is not the same as the previous chips. So we use PX30 > instead of RK3326 for name, and the opening document is only for PX30, we > think this is more convenient for developers. ok, sounds reasonable :-) ... So we'll stay with the PX30. Heiko From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: heiko@sntech.de (Heiko =?ISO-8859-1?Q?St=FCbner?=) Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 22:53:00 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v1 11/13] dt-bindings: power: add PX30 SoCs header for power-domain In-Reply-To: <9c9606f0-5c97-1a6e-a3c5-f6380c16fea4@rock-chips.com> References: <1526009458-28579-1-git-send-email-zhangqing@rock-chips.com> <508694354.7btLQf7nsA@phil> <9c9606f0-5c97-1a6e-a3c5-f6380c16fea4@rock-chips.com> Message-ID: <1550439.0mAU4944n0@diego> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi, Am Sonntag, 13. Mai 2018, 17:18:12 CEST schrieb Tao Huang: > Hi Heiko: > > On 2018?05?12? 06:11, Heiko Stuebner wrote: > > Here I have a naming question. When looking at the vendor kernel > > it looks like the px30 is largely related to the rk3326. > > (rk3326.dtsi includeing the px30.dtsi) > > > > What is the reason for basing the naming on the px30 this time? And could > > we possibly keep to rkXXXX names for the basic things in the kernel, thus > > keeping the pxXX as second name, like with the other px-variants before? > > PX30 and RK3326 are different chips. PX30 has more features. You can simply > think that RK3326 is a subset of PX30. The RK3326 is more like a PX30 > derivative chip. This is not the same as the previous chips. So we use PX30 > instead of RK3326 for name, and the opening document is only for PX30, we > think this is more convenient for developers. ok, sounds reasonable :-) ... So we'll stay with the PX30. Heiko