On 10/26/2016 7:35 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> > As we are talking about generic soc_device_attribute fields, I was hoping that >> > having a vendor field would be helpful as along with family it would provide >> > a more thorough information. Also as more than one foundries may be used for >> > a soc, can we have a field say foundry_id to provide this information. > My first feeling is that this 'vendor' information can should be > derived from the family. It's also not clear what would happen > to this when a company gets bought. E.g. the Oxnas product family > was subsequently owned by Oxford, PLX, Avago and Broadcom, and the > mxs family was Sigmatel, Freescale, now NXP and might soon be > Qualcomm. What would you put in there in this case? Okay, not having vendor field is fine for me. Could you also suggest something about the foundry_id field. -- QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a\nmember of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
