Hi Maxime, Icenowy, On Sat, 28 Nov 2020 at 12:59, Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 于 2020年11月28日 GMT+08:00 下午7:54:04, "Clément Péron" <peron.clem@xxxxxxxxx> 写到: > >Hi Icenowy, > > > >On Sat, 28 Nov 2020 at 12:28, Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> 在 2020-11-28星期六的 11:38 +0100，Maxime Ripard写道： > >> > 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? > >> > >> Then we can just keep confusing name? > > > >Sorry maybe I missed some information > >But why don't you do like pinephone? > > They're the same board revision with different LCD panels. I just ask Pine64 about this and here is the reply : "The PineTab LCD panel change was a last minutes before production starts that vendor advise us switch over to new LCD controller due to EoL concern". "Pine64 communication" is not so bad we just need to ask and they reply :) So the issue is not that the Product was not finalized but that one component arrives in EoL. This could also happens during a running production. Regards, Clement > > And the major problem is that the DT for samples is already submitted > under the name "PineTab". > > >sun50i-a64-pinetab-1.0.dts > >sun50i-a64-pinetab-1.1.dts > > > >-dev is also a confusing name I think, as the board has been already > >shipped. > > > >Regards, > >Clement > > > > > >> > >> If we do so, how can we mark the new DT as "the user should use this > >> one"? > >> > >> -- > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >Groups "linux-sunxi" group. > >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > >send an email to linux-sunxi+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. > >> To view this discussion on the web, visit > >https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/linux-sunxi/1666a61f6ea3e7d573795f9000a0b096c7b7dee0.camel%40aosc.io.
