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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
