Re: [linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 3/3] arm64: allwinner: dts: a64: add DT for PineTab developer sample

From: "Clément Péron" <peron.clem@gmail.com>
To: Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@aosc.io>
Cc: devicetree <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@siol.net>,
	Samuel Holland <samuel@sholland.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-sunxi <linux-sunxi@googlegroups.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech>, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 3/3] arm64: allwinner: dts: a64: add DT for PineTab developer sample
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 12:54:04 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJiuCcfEcM+Dksm4uoRPCiRepDSnEmp7pr8Qk5EsFSH_zEOTYA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1666a61f6ea3e7d573795f9000a0b096c7b7dee0.camel@aosc.io>

Hi Icenowy,

On Sat, 28 Nov 2020 at 12:28, Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@aosc.io> wrote:
>
> 在 2020-11-28星期六的 11:38 +0100，Maxime Ripard写道：
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 09:10:38PM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
> > > > > > > > Okay. But I'm not satisfied with a non-public sample
> > > > > > > > occupies
> > > > > > > > the pinetab name. Is rename it to pinetab-dev and add a
> > > > > > > > pinetab-retail okay?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To me, naming the production version anything but "pinetab"
> > > > > > > isn't
> > > > > > > satisfying either.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I understand where you're coming from, but the point I was
> > > > > > making my
> > > > > > previous mail is precisely that it's not really possible.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You want to name the early adopter version _the_ production
> > > > > > version. Let's assume the hardware changes again between the
> > > > > > early
> > > > > > adopter and mass-production version. Which one will be _the_
> > > > > > production version? The early-adopter or the mass-produced
> > > > > > one?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There's really no good answer here, and both would suck in
> > > > > > their
> > > > > > own way. The only way to deal with this is to simply avoid
> > > > > > defining one version as the one true board, and just loading
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > proper DT in u-boot based on whatever clue we have of the
> > > > > > hardware
> > > > > > revision.
> > > > > Then will it be okay to rename current pinetab DT to
> > > > > pinetab-sample and then introduce new DTs all with suffixes?
> > > >
> > > > No. From my previous mail:
> > >
> > > It can be seen as dropping the PineTab DT and introduce new DTs
> > > with
> > > suffix.
> > >
> > > Do we have rule that we cannot drop boards?
> >
> > Are you really arguing that removing a DT and then adding an
> > identical
> > one under a different name is not renaming it?
>
> Then we can just keep confusing name?

Sorry maybe I missed some information
But why don't you do like pinephone?
sun50i-a64-pinetab-1.0.dts
sun50i-a64-pinetab-1.1.dts

-dev is also a confusing name I think, as the board has been already shipped.

Regards,
Clement

>
> If we do so, how can we mark the new DT as "the user should use this
> one"?
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "linux-sunxi" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to linux-sunxi+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/linux-sunxi/1666a61f6ea3e7d573795f9000a0b096c7b7dee0.camel%40aosc.io.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel