On Sunday 08 March 2015 18:47:21 Maxime Ripard wrote: > > Not enough information to check signature validity. Show Details > Hi, > > On Sat, Mar 07, 2015 at 09:41:54AM +0100, Code Kipper wrote: > > > Don't your device has any brand on the case or the PCB? > > > > There is nothing on the PCB to reference a manufacturer, the actual packaging > > and case are from the earlier MK808B and mention A9. There was only a > > small sticker on the side to show that the contents was a MK808C. > > I guess 'unknown' isn't a valid vendor name, > > Not really. > > I really don't know what's the policy to apply in such a case when we > have a device that has no identified vendor. > > We need to give a vendor name, because the compatible is used to tell > two devices apart, in the case where we would have to apply quirks for > a particular devices. > > And if we have two devices (say a Marvlell and an Allwinner one), with > the same name, and without any vendor, we're screwed. > > Maybe falling back to the SoC vendor, in our case, would make sense? > > Arnd? Rob? Mark? An opinion on this? > I don't really have a good idea. In this case the SoC vendor might not be the worst choice, because it's likely to be very close to some reference design they actually did. Another possibility would be to use a string that refers to the organization that does the upstream kernel support, but that's harder for individuals that do not work for a company that wants its name used that way. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
