From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rob Herring Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] drivers: pinctrl: add driver for Allwinner A64 SoC Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 09:54:05 -0600 Message-ID: <20160208155405.GA4677@rob-hp-laptop> References: <1454348370-3816-1-git-send-email-andre.przywara@arm.com> <1454348370-3816-6-git-send-email-andre.przywara@arm.com> <20160201182754.GA14737@excalibur.cnev.de> <56AFE0EC.8080207@arm.com> <20160202100046.GM4652@lukather> <56B0DF26.10203@arm.com> <20160204165151.GK4270@lukather> Reply-To: robh-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160204165151.GK4270@lukather> List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , To: Maxime Ripard Cc: Andre Przywara , Karsten Merker , Chen-Yu Tsai , linux-sunxi-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org, Arnd Bergmann , linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Linus Walleij , Vishnu Patekar , linux-gpio-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Kumar Gala , devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 05:51:51PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: > Hi Andre, > > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 04:53:58PM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote: > > > So, droping it in the filenames, why not. But I'd really like to keep > > > the same compatible scheme. > > > > And I still don't get this: in the DT compatible scheme we always have a > > vendor prefix, so allwinner,a64 is surely not a mysterious ARM Ltd. core > > or a new Apple SoC. Instead it is the A64 from Allwinner, full stop. So > > why should we add an arbitrary and confusing sun50i naming to it (when > > it actually should be more like "sun8i-a64"). > > I don't decide on their marketing names. And I know you want to start > anew with the arm64 SoCs, but the truth is, you don't. Most of the > compatibles in the DTSI are from earlier SoCs, and we have to keep > that legacy and remain consistent with it. With all the good and bad > things a legacy imply. I have to agree. Unless there is some agreement to move to another naming scheme, then just follow the same pattern. If sunXi is just a made up name outside of Allwinner to provide some logical grouping of SoCs, then yes, that probably should not have been done. Rob From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755339AbcBHPyd (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Feb 2016 10:54:33 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:36402 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754821AbcBHPyK (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Feb 2016 10:54:10 -0500 Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 09:54:05 -0600 From: Rob Herring To: Maxime Ripard Cc: Andre Przywara , Karsten Merker , Chen-Yu Tsai , linux-sunxi@googlegroups.com, Arnd Bergmann , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Walleij , Vishnu Patekar , linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Kumar Gala , devicetree@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] drivers: pinctrl: add driver for Allwinner A64 SoC Message-ID: <20160208155405.GA4677@rob-hp-laptop> References: <1454348370-3816-1-git-send-email-andre.przywara@arm.com> <1454348370-3816-6-git-send-email-andre.przywara@arm.com> <20160201182754.GA14737@excalibur.cnev.de> <56AFE0EC.8080207@arm.com> <20160202100046.GM4652@lukather> <56B0DF26.10203@arm.com> <20160204165151.GK4270@lukather> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160204165151.GK4270@lukather> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 05:51:51PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: > Hi Andre, > > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 04:53:58PM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote: > > > So, droping it in the filenames, why not. But I'd really like to keep > > > the same compatible scheme. > > > > And I still don't get this: in the DT compatible scheme we always have a > > vendor prefix, so allwinner,a64 is surely not a mysterious ARM Ltd. core > > or a new Apple SoC. Instead it is the A64 from Allwinner, full stop. So > > why should we add an arbitrary and confusing sun50i naming to it (when > > it actually should be more like "sun8i-a64"). > > I don't decide on their marketing names. And I know you want to start > anew with the arm64 SoCs, but the truth is, you don't. Most of the > compatibles in the DTSI are from earlier SoCs, and we have to keep > that legacy and remain consistent with it. With all the good and bad > things a legacy imply. I have to agree. Unless there is some agreement to move to another naming scheme, then just follow the same pattern. If sunXi is just a made up name outside of Allwinner to provide some logical grouping of SoCs, then yes, that probably should not have been done. Rob From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: robh@kernel.org (Rob Herring) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 09:54:05 -0600 Subject: [PATCH 05/11] drivers: pinctrl: add driver for Allwinner A64 SoC In-Reply-To: <20160204165151.GK4270@lukather> References: <1454348370-3816-1-git-send-email-andre.przywara@arm.com> <1454348370-3816-6-git-send-email-andre.przywara@arm.com> <20160201182754.GA14737@excalibur.cnev.de> <56AFE0EC.8080207@arm.com> <20160202100046.GM4652@lukather> <56B0DF26.10203@arm.com> <20160204165151.GK4270@lukather> Message-ID: <20160208155405.GA4677@rob-hp-laptop> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 05:51:51PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: > Hi Andre, > > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 04:53:58PM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote: > > > So, droping it in the filenames, why not. But I'd really like to keep > > > the same compatible scheme. > > > > And I still don't get this: in the DT compatible scheme we always have a > > vendor prefix, so allwinner,a64 is surely not a mysterious ARM Ltd. core > > or a new Apple SoC. Instead it is the A64 from Allwinner, full stop. So > > why should we add an arbitrary and confusing sun50i naming to it (when > > it actually should be more like "sun8i-a64"). > > I don't decide on their marketing names. And I know you want to start > anew with the arm64 SoCs, but the truth is, you don't. Most of the > compatibles in the DTSI are from earlier SoCs, and we have to keep > that legacy and remain consistent with it. With all the good and bad > things a legacy imply. I have to agree. Unless there is some agreement to move to another naming scheme, then just follow the same pattern. If sunXi is just a made up name outside of Allwinner to provide some logical grouping of SoCs, then yes, that probably should not have been done. Rob