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?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
