From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tomasz Figa Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] Support 64bit Cortex A57 based Exynos7 SoC Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 13:34:50 +0200 Message-ID: <53FDC25A.2010806@samsung.com> References: <1409132660-1898-1-git-send-email-ch.naveen@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-reply-to: <1409132660-1898-1-git-send-email-ch.naveen@samsung.com> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Naveen Krishna Chatradhi , catalin.marinas@arm.com Cc: naveenkrishna.ch@gmail.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, cpgs@samsung.com List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi Naveen, On 27.08.2014 11:44, Naveen Krishna Chatradhi wrote: > This patchset supports new Exynos7 Samsung SoC based on Cortex-A57. > Exynos7 is a System-On-Chip (SoC) that is based on 64-bit > ARMv8 RISC processor. A general issue with this series is that it introduces a very generic name for a very specific single SoC. We remember exactly the same cases for Exynos4 (original name used for Exynos5250) and Exynos5 (Exynos5250) and we should have learned that it is better to use a specific name first and only then try to make things common if it turns out to be appropriate. Best regards, Tomasz From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: t.figa@samsung.com (Tomasz Figa) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 13:34:50 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 00/14] Support 64bit Cortex A57 based Exynos7 SoC In-Reply-To: <1409132660-1898-1-git-send-email-ch.naveen@samsung.com> References: <1409132660-1898-1-git-send-email-ch.naveen@samsung.com> Message-ID: <53FDC25A.2010806@samsung.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Naveen, On 27.08.2014 11:44, Naveen Krishna Chatradhi wrote: > This patchset supports new Exynos7 Samsung SoC based on Cortex-A57. > Exynos7 is a System-On-Chip (SoC) that is based on 64-bit > ARMv8 RISC processor. A general issue with this series is that it introduces a very generic name for a very specific single SoC. We remember exactly the same cases for Exynos4 (original name used for Exynos5250) and Exynos5 (Exynos5250) and we should have learned that it is better to use a specific name first and only then try to make things common if it turns out to be appropriate. Best regards, Tomasz