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? If we do so, how can we mark the new DT as "the user should use this one"?
