Hi Maxime On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 11:35, Maxime Ripard <maxime@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 10:07:27PM +0100, Clément Péron wrote: > > 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. > > Like you said, it can happen pretty much any time, for any reason, so > the intent doesn't really matter here. Agree, that was more to support Pin64 guys here. As pinetab compatible can't be reused maybe somethings like this : sun50i-a64-pinetab.dtsi sun50i-a64-pinetab-1.0-early-adopter.dtb sun50i-a64-pinetab-1.0.dtb or sun50i-a64-pinetab-retail.dtb. But retail is like prod it's not explicit. What do you think ? Clement > > Maxime
