[PATCH] ARM: sun7i: dt: Add new MK808C device

From: maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com (Maxime Ripard)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: sun7i: dt: Add new MK808C device
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 15:50:44 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150309145044.GS5085@lukather> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9483321.y7yrfWRaG5@wuerfel>

On Sun, Mar 08, 2015 at 10:18:30PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sunday 08 March 2015 18:47:21 Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > 
> > Not enough information to check signature validity.	Show Details
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Sat, Mar 07, 2015 at 09:41:54AM +0100, Code Kipper wrote:
> > > > Don't your device has any brand on the case or the PCB?
> > > 
> > > There is nothing on the PCB to reference a manufacturer, the actual packaging
> > > and case are from the earlier MK808B and mention A9. There was only a
> > > small sticker on the side to show that the contents was a MK808C.
> > > I guess 'unknown' isn't a valid vendor name,
> > 
> > Not really.
> > 
> > I really don't know what's the policy to apply in such a case when we
> > have a device that has no identified vendor.
> > 
> > We need to give a vendor name, because the compatible is used to tell
> > two devices apart, in the case where we would have to apply quirks for
> > a particular devices.
> > 
> > And if we have two devices (say a Marvlell and an Allwinner one), with
> > the same name, and without any vendor, we're screwed.
> > 
> > Maybe falling back to the SoC vendor, in our case, would make sense?
> > 
> > Arnd? Rob? Mark? An opinion on this?
> > 
> 
> I don't really have a good idea. In this case the SoC vendor might
> not be the worst choice, because it's likely to be very close to
> some reference design they actually did.
> 
> Another possibility would be to use a string that refers to the
> organization that does the upstream kernel support, but that's
> harder for individuals that do not work for a company that wants
> its name used that way.

Yeah, I don't really think that would be applicable for individuals,
and would understand if people wouldn't like to follow such policy
(I'm not even sure I would).

At least, the SoC vendor name would be consistent, without being very
touchy.

Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20150309/3459ee38/attachment.sig>