On 21/07/2022 10:03, Martyn Welch wrote: > On Wed, 2022-07-20 at 19:07 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 20/07/2022 17:00, Martyn Welch wrote: >>> Add "msc" vendor prefix for MSC Technologies GmbH >>> (https://www.msc-technologies.eu). >> >> Does not really work - leads to Avnet, so there is no MSC anymore? >> > > It still seems to be used as branding by Avnet. > >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Martyn Welch <martyn.welch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> >>> Changes in v2: >>> - New addition >>> >>> 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 0496773a3c4d..1658357bc1c4 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml >>> @@ -816,6 +816,8 @@ patternProperties: >>> "^mrvl,.*": >>> description: Marvell Technology Group Ltd. >>> deprecated: true >>> + "^msc,.*": >>> + description: MSC Technologies GmbH. >> >> This should be rather msct or msctech, but anyway in fact you maybe >> should use avnet? >> > > My rationale for using MSC Technologies is that is how the device is > described on the website as being a MSC device. I think the > amalgamation of the MSC website into Avnet's has happened in the last > year or so. I assume a new device released in the near future would be > branded more directly as an Avnet device, or maybe not, I see that the > i.MX 9 is being described as "MSC SM2S-IMX93". > > I'll switch to msctech unless there are objections to that. > We still have prefixes (and compatibles) from entities which disappeared (e.g. Freescale) but these were added probably before the merge/acquisition happened. In this case, I do not see a benefit of adding a vendor prefix of non-existing vendor. Therefore use avnet as vendor in compatible. The model name of course can stay MSC or whatever you prefer. Best regards, Krzysztof
