On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Andreas Färber <afaerber@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Am 12.09.2016 um 22:43 schrieb Kevin Hilman: >> Carlo Caione <carlo@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 6:28 PM, Andreas Färber <afaerber@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>>> +Boards with the Amlogic Meson GXL SoC shall have the following properties: >>>>> + Required root node property: >>>>> + compatible: "amlogic,meson-gxl-s905x", "amlogic,meson-gxl"; >>>> >>>> Can we please use "amlogic,s905x", "amlogic,meson-gxl"? No need to >>>> complicate the name. Also affects .dtsi and .dts below. >>> >>> gxl != s905x. > > Huh? You're seemingly completely missing my point... > > But you are right that _Neil's_ heading needs to be fixed, too: > Clearly not all GXL SoCs need to have an S905X compatible string! > So it should be "Boards with the Amlogic S905X SoC shall ..." or so. > >>> AFAWK to the GXL family belong several different SoCs, like S905X, >>> S905D, etc... (see patch 3/3) > > Thanks, I already know that, that's why you have two compatible strings > instead of just one like for GXBB. We can certainly prepend one for > symmetry there, too, if it makes you happier. > >>> This is why we use meson-gxl-s905x, meson-gxl-s905d, etc... >> >> Correct. >> >>> We could s/meson-gxl-s905x/meson-s905x/ and >>> s/meson-gxl-s905d/meson-s905d/ but I honestly prefer this way because >>> we can clearly see which family the SoC belongs to (the Amlogic naming >>> convention is already messy enough). >>> I mean, yes it's longer, but it's for the sake of documentation IMO. >> >> +1 > > I still don't follow that conclusion. The board is called "amlogic,p231" > because P231 is a unique identifier within the Amlogic namespace, so why > not call the SoC "amlogic,s905x" for the same reason? The documentation > is already there in having both "amlogic,s905x" _and_ > "amlogic,meson-gxl" - please re-read my post. There is no S905X in GXL > family and another S905X in some other Amlogic SoC family, so it's > unique and there is no reason to encode any hierarchies into its name > other than vendor,name. > > I'm not arguing over the file name, where it perfectly makes sense to > have a meson-gxl- prefix (already discussed), just about the compatible > string where we don't have "amlogic,meson-gxl-s905x-p231" either because > it is completely unnecessary and does _not_ add any value. Sorry, I'm guilty of not fully reading the original post. I was thinking only of the filenames, which it seems were already agreed on to be long. > Not that we're checking this string anywhere anyway... If you want to > check for the GXL family you have to use "amlogic,meson-gxl"; if you > want to check for the specific SoC you use "amlogic,s905x". Simple. We > never match partial strings, so there is no sense in a hardcoded prefix > that is duplicating information already available. For the compatible strings, I think your proposed shorter (but still unique) forms are fine with me. Kevin -- 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
