On 10/01/2023 20:56, forbidden405@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On 10/01/2023 20:32, krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> >> Then I am not sure if we want to support such devices mainline. It is not > only >> anonymity but simply not following standards and practices. >> What's more there is no guarantee what this device is. If there is no > known >> manufacturer, anytime another device from anyone can claim it is also > uf896. >> IOW, what guarantees you have that other person who has something looking >> like "uf896" actually has something the same as you and can use your DTB? > > There is a label printed (i.e. ufi001c or uf896 or something else but not > getting mainlined now) on the board, different models have different > labels(and different board design). And currently I know all ufi001c(even > some other models) shares the same device tree, as a downstream device tree > has been tested by thousands of people. I'm not familiar with uf896 as it is > owned by Nikita Travkin and tested by him. The device sells very well and > many people will benefit from mainlining. This does not solve my concerns. If you cannot point specific manufacturer and model (if there is no manufacturer, there can be no official model, right?), how anyone can be sure that their device is compatible with yours? Best regards, Krzysztof
