On October 2, 2024 10:06:41 PM GMT+03:00, Laurentiu Tudor <tudor.laurentiu.oss@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >Hi Alex, > >On 10/1/24 20:57, Aleksandrs Vinarskis wrote: >> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 at 18:23, Laurentiu Tudor >> <tudor.laurentiu.oss@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Alex, >>> >>> On 10/1/24 19:09, Aleksandrs Vinarskis wrote: >>>> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 at 02:47, Kemp, Bryan <Bryan.Kemp@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Fascinating topic. First of all, thank you Alex for the explanation of your logic, and thank you as well for the work on the device tree for the XPS 13. I understand completely how the Dell naming/numbering scheme is confusing. The shortened version down to just the model number could also be confusing. For example, there is an XPS 9520 as well as a Latitude 9520. The 9 basically translates to "premium" not a specific line of business. For what it is worth, I would prefer the dell-xps13-9345 naming and I think we can have to be mindful to avoid a naming collision in a decade. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Thanks for the input, it's really nice to have Dell's perspective as well. >>>> That's a good point with latitude, I was only aware of 5XXX/7XXX >>>> naming for that one... which I guess further highlights the confusing >>>> naming scheme. >>> >>> Yeah, completely agree. We will raise this internally so that in the >>> future we'll do a better job at naming platforms. >>> >>>> I will re-spin with `dell-xps13-9345` and `dell,xps13-9345` >>>> respectively as proposed then, unless there will be any other feedback >>>> on the V3 series before tomorrow. >>> >>> Great, thanks! >>> >>> Couple of points: >>> - i'm thinking that maybe at a later point, as more dell platforms are >>> getting added, we can re-organize the device trees, e.g. have a common >>> 'dell-xps.dtsi' which gets inherited by specific platforms >> >> Completely agree. Although I'm not sure about the name - analyzing >> DSDT of Tributo it seems there are quite a few more things defined >> than particular laptop utilizes, eg. support for x3 TypeC and x3 USB >> MP while current device only has x2 TypeC and x1 USB MP. I believe >> these are either leftovers of examples being provided to Dell which >> were just left there, or ACPI tables being (at least partially?) >> shared between multiple platforms - eg. Inspiron 14" 7441/Latitude 14" >> 5455 etc. In the latter case (unfortunately cannot test myself due to >> lack of hw) perhaps the .dtsi can be inherited by more than just XPS >> family. If you/Kemp Bryan could share some insight on that already wrt >> to how much is shared (if any), I can split to dtsi/dts with upcoming >> re-spin. Otherwise indeed can be done when the next platform is being >> introduced. > >Regarding ACPI, hard to tell as I'm not familiar with what's exposed in there... there might be legacy / inconsistent things. > >For now, I'd suggest to just stick with what we have at the moment and build on that. More to the point, have the device tree for xps13-9345 accepted and derive from it, if / when at some point in time similar platforms show up. > >>> - just noticed that the firmware paths point to something like >>> ".../dell/tributo/...". Should we reconsider these too? Maybe something >>> like ".../dell/xps/..." would be better? >> >> Yes, will drop 'tributo' altogether. Perhaps "../dell/xps13-9345" >> then, to match the proposed compat? > > >Sounds good to me. > >> Also when Divo/Huracan/Perfomante >> will come out, those are still "XPS" but I would guess will have >> different firmware files, so maybe it makes sense to be a bit more >> precise with the naming? > >On naming, there are ongoing internal discussions to make them more coherent. > >Apart from that, could you please Cc: us if you plan to submit stuff to linux-firmware? Only Dell, the final copyright holder and product owner can submit files to linux-firmware. -- With best wishes Dmitry
