Hi Geert, On Monday, 15 January 2018 10:05:59 EET Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 7:59 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Monday, 15 January 2018 08:55:29 EET Simon Horman wrote: > >> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 03:29:48PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > >>> On Friday, 12 January 2018 12:13:18 EET Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >>>> As this is a new binding, please use "renesas,<soc>-lvds". > >>> > >>> I've recently been thinking that we made the wrong choice, <ip>-<soc> > >>> would be better in my opinion as it aligns with <ip>-<version>, but > >>> it's too late to change that, so I'll change the order here. > >> > >> My recollection is that in the beginning we had a bit of a mixture but > >> leaned towards <ip>-<soc>, which made sense in my opinion. However, after > >> some discussion it was agreed that the best-practice for upstream was to > >> use <soc>-<ip>. Unless that situation has changed lets stock with using > >> <soc>-<ip> for new bindings. > > > > Sure, that was my plan, and it seems I failed to explain it clearly. I too > > believe that <ip>-<soc> would be better, but as we have standardized on > > <soc>- <ip> and as there's no strong reason to reconsider that decision > > at the moment, the next version of this patch will use <soc>-<ip>. It was > > a mistake in v1, not an attempt to change what we had agreed on. > > Note that I believe you have to consider the full tuple > "<vendor>,<soc>-<ip>" to see the light: <soc> is more closely tied to > <vendor>, than <ip> is. I suppose there are pros and cons for both options :-) I see <soc> more as a version qualifier. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
