Hi, On 08/02/16 15:54, Rob Herring wrote: > 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. So I still don't like it, but will not waste my time or energy on that front. Maxime, do you want "allwinner,sun50i-a64" or would "allwinner,sunxi-a64" be OK as well? Cheers, Andre. -- 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
