Re: [PATCH 02/14] dt-bindings: arm: don't embed SoC name into the ULCB boards' compatible

From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
To: Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>
Cc: Eugeniu Rosca <erosca@de.adit-jv.com>,
	Eugeniu Rosca <roscaeugeniu@gmail.com>,
	Simon Horman <horms+renesas@verge.net.au>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
	Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@renesas.com>,
	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com>,
	Vladimir Barinov <vladimir.barinov@cogentembedded.com>,
	Niklas Soderlund <niklas.soderlund+renesas@ragnatech.se>,
	Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@jmondi.org>,
	Magnus Damm <damm+renesas@opensource.se>,
	Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham+renesas@ideasonboard.com>,
	Takeshi Kihara <takeshi.kihara.df@renesas.com>,
	Ulrich Hecht <ulrich.hecht+renesas@gmail.com>,
	linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/14] dt-bindings: arm: don't embed SoC name into the ULCB boards' compatible
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2018 11:22:22 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1657886.YgBlprSStX@avalon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87a7pywq7b.wl-kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>

Hi Morimoto-san,

On Tuesday, 7 August 2018 11:18:11 EEST Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
> Hi Eugeniu, again
> 
> > Yeah, it is true "so far". I think there is no problem on current kernel.
> > But, unfortunately we need to keep compatibility for old/new DT
> > (= actually, I don't like this DT rule. It is 100% "shackles for the
> > legs")
> > Thus, my big concern is that, in the future,
> > "if" we added "renesas,ulcb" compatible driver/soc,
> > both h3/m3 ulcb will use it.
> > Then, if "h3" can work/boot by using same "m3" settings, it is no problem
> > for me (= "works but limited" is also OK, of course.
> > 
> >  This means "matched to more generic compatible")
> 
> "renesas,ulcb" is very generic naming.
> Not only h3/m3, if we had v3/e3/d3 etc ulcb,

Furthermore, "ulcb" is an unofficial term, the boards are named "starter kit" 
(SK). Using internal names in code or device tree sources is a normal practice 
and is fine with me, but I'm a bit bothered by the fact that the H3/M3 boards 
are called ULCB in DT, while the V3 board are called SK. I wonder if we should 
unify that or if it's too late.

> and if we had such compatible driver/soc, it needs to match to all ulcb.
> In reality, maybe we don't create such compatible driver, though.
> But, I don't know, I can follow to maintainer opinion.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart