On 21/03/2023 08:39, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
>>>
>>> arch/mips/ralink/mt7620.c: rt_sysc_membase =
>>> plat_of_remap_node("ralink,mt7620a-sysc");
>>>
>>> That's the reason I also used prefix ralink for the rest.
>>>
>>> Does it make sense to you to maintain this one as ralink,mt7620a-sysc
>>> and add the following with mediatek prefix?
>>>
>>> mediatek,mt7620-sysc
>>> mediatek,mt7628-sysc
>>> mediatek,mt7688-sysc
>>>
>>> That would be weird IMHO.
>>
>> What exactly would be weird? Did you read the discussion about vendor
>> prefix from Arinc? mt7620 is not a Ralink product, so what would be
>> weird is to use "ralink" vendor prefix. This was never a Ralink. However
>> since there are compatibles using "ralink" for non-ralink devices, we
>> agreed not to change them.
>>
>> These though use at least in one place mediatek, so the above argument
>> does not apply. (and before you say "but they also use ralink and
>> mediatek", it does not matter - it is already inconsistent thus we can
>> choose whatever we want and ralink is not correct).
>
> My argument was that your point being Ralink is now Mediatek, thus there
> is no conflict and no issues with different vendor used. It's the next
> best thing to be able to address the inconsistency, call everything of
> the MTMIPS platform ralink on the compatible strings.
And how does it help consistency? The mt7620 is used also with mediatek
prefix and adding more variants of realtek does not make the
inconsistency smaller. It's still inconsistent.
>
> If we take the calling new things mediatek route, we will never get to
> the bottom of fixing the naming inconsistency.
All new things, so new SoCs, should be called mediatek, because there is
no ralink and mediatek is already used for them. So why some new
Mediatek SoCs are "mediatek" but some other also new SoCs are "ralink"?
You can do nothing (and no actual need) about existing inconsistency...
Best regards,
Krzysztof
