On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 03:44:06PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 03:46:47PM +0300, Sergey.Semin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > From: Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Add "BAIKAL ELECTRONICS, JSC" to the list of devicetree vendor prefixes > > as "be". > > > > Website: http://www.baikalelectronics.com > > > > Signed-off-by: Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Alexey Malahov <Alexey.Malahov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Paul Burton <paulburton@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Ralf Baechle <ralf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml > > index 9e67944bec9c..8568713396af 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml > > @@ -141,6 +141,8 @@ patternProperties: > > description: Shenzhen AZW Technology Co., Ltd. > > "^bananapi,.*": > > description: BIPAI KEJI LIMITED > > + "^be,.*": > > + description: BAIKAL ELECTRONICS, JSC > > Also, is 'be' a well known abbreviation for this company. Perhaps > 'baikal' instead? > Hm, I don't think that baikal is a well known synonym of the company either. Seeing the company isn't well known in general.) Here the 'Baikal' name is mostly associated with the deepest lake in the world.) We had a discussion amongst our team developers what abbreviation to choose. Some of us suggested to use 'baikal' prefix too. But after all we agreed to set the 'be' one as being short and yet compatible with company name. However it's unlikely that developers looking at vendor prefix would think of a lake first and, you are right, that 'baikal' word would point to the original company name better than 'be'. On the other hand the chips the company produces also have 'baikal' in their names: Baikal-T1, Baikal-M1, etc. So the compatible strings of the SoC components either would look like: - be,bt1; be,baikal-t1 (SoC/machine compatible strings) - be,bt1-i2c; be,bt1-pvt; be,bt1-efuse; be,bt1-axi-ic; etc (individual SoC subdevices compatible strings) or - baikal,bt1; baikal,baikal-t1 - baikal,bt1-i2c; baikal,bt1-pvt; baikal,bt1-efuse; baikal,bt1-axi-ic; etc First version seemed less cumbersome, having less 'baikal' in the compatible strings. In the second case the vendor prefix turned to be longer than the rest of the component name, which is supposed to be the main part of the string. So you think 'baikal' would be better anyway? It would be great to hear your opinion about this in details, because we still have doubts which prefix is better. (I'm so persistent in describing why we chose 'be' prefix, because in case of changing it to 'baikal' I would have to alter all the drivers we wrote, which you must agree isn't that pleasant work.) -Sergey > > "^bhf,.*": > > description: Beckhoff Automation GmbH & Co. KG > > "^bitmain,.*": > > -- > > 2.25.1 > >
