On 24/05/2024 20:40, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 04:04:50PM -0700, Tim Harvey wrote: >> On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 7:47 AM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 09:02:46AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 22/05/2024 23:50, Tim Harvey wrote: >>>>> The GW7905 was renamed to GW7500 before production release. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Tim Harvey <tharvey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml | 4 ++-- >>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml >>>>> index 0027201e19f8..d8bc295079e3 100644 >>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml >>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml >>>>> @@ -920,8 +920,8 @@ properties: >>>>> - fsl,imx8mm-ddr4-evk # i.MX8MM DDR4 EVK Board >>>>> - fsl,imx8mm-evk # i.MX8MM EVK Board >>>>> - fsl,imx8mm-evkb # i.MX8MM EVKB Board >>>>> + - gateworks,imx8mm-gw75xx-0x # i.MX8MM Gateworks Board >>>> >>>> That's not even equivalent. You 7500 != 75xx. >>>> >>> >>>>> - gateworks,imx8mm-gw7904 >>>>> - - gateworks,imx8mm-gw7905-0x # i.MX8MM Gateworks Board >>>> >>>> Compatibles do not change. It's just a string. Fixed string. >>> >>> I think there's justification here for removing it, per the commit >>> message, the rename happened before the device was available to >>> customers. >>> Additionally, I think we can give people that upstream things before they're >>> publicly available a bit of slack, otherwise we're just discouraging >>> people from upstreaming early. >> >> Hi Conor, >> >> Thanks for understanding - that's exactly what happened. I'm in the >> habit of submitting patches early and often and it's no fun when >> something like a silly product name gets changed and breaks all the >> hard work. >> >> The board model number is stored in an EEPROM at manufacturing time >> and that EEPROM model is used to build a dt name. So instead of GW7905 >> which would be a one-off custom design it was decided to change the >> product to a GW75xx. The difference between GW7500 and GW75xx is >> because we subload components on boards between GW7500/GW7501/GW7502 >> etc but the dt is the same. >> >> If there is resistance to a patch that renames it then I guess I'll >> have to submit a patch that removes the obsolete board, then adds back >> the same board under a different name. Shall I do that? > > I think this patch is fine - other than the inconsistency that Krzysztof > pointed out between the "renamed to gw7500" and the "gw75xx" in the new > compatible. I am not a fan of renaming compatibles because of marketing change, because compatible does not have to reflect the marketing name, but there was already precedent from Qualcomm which I did not nak, so fine here as well. Double wildcard 75xx is however a bit worrying. Best regards, Krzysztof
