Hi Andre, On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 12:00:11PM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote: > Hi Maxime, > > On 04/01/16 20:30, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > Hi Andre, > > > > On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 10:29:06AM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote: > >>>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/Makefile b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/Makefile > >>>> index e080290..130e7bc 100644 > >>>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/Makefile > >>>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/Makefile > >>>> @@ -12,5 +12,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20) += pinctrl-sun7i-a20.o > >>>> obj-$(CONFIG_PINCTRL_SUN8I_A23) += pinctrl-sun8i-a23.o > >>>> obj-$(CONFIG_PINCTRL_SUN8I_A23_R) += pinctrl-sun8i-a23-r.o > >>>> obj-$(CONFIG_PINCTRL_SUN8I_A33) += pinctrl-sun8i-a33.o > >>>> +obj-$(CONFIG_PINCTRL_A64) += pinctrl-a64.o > >>> > >>> Shouldn't this follow pinctrl config name like other sunXi SOCs? > >>> This should be PINCTRL_SUN??_A64. > >> > >> I never really got the reason we use those sunxi names in addition to > >> the SoC name in the first place, maybe apart from copying from some > >> Allwinner code. > >> Since I decided to not look at Allwinner's BSP at all (if avoidable), I > >> also thought it would be time to drop that sunxi naming, which looks > >> redundant to me. > >> Is there any reason why we would need this (beside having a rather > >> unique identifier prefix)? > > > > It's mostly historical. > > > > > > Back when we started this, There was a few SoCs already out: A10, > > A10s, A12 and A13, which was very similar to the Cortex-A naming > > scheme (and I think the Cortex-A12 was also announced at the time). > > > > We couldn't really use the SoC family either, since there was already > > multiple SoCs that were part of the same family (the A10s, A12 and > > A13, part of the sun5i family). > > > > In order to avoid any confusion, we chose to go with both to uniquely > > and without any confusion possible, and we just went on with that > > naming scheme for consistency. > > I see, thanks for the explanation. > I was wondering since we now move to a new architecture as well to avoid > this historic "ballast", but I have no problems with adding "_sun50i_" > to the identifiers and file names. > To me as only a casual sunxi user I found it mostly hard to memorize the > connections between the sunxi numbering and the SoC names (I just know > that the A20 is sun7i ;-). So for finding a specific dts for instance, > you have to start with the sunxi number to get it TAB completed ... I guess it doesn't really matter for arm64, since it seems like there's a sub-folder per SoC family. However, having an a12.dtsi in arch/arm/boot/dts will probably bring a lot of confusion :) I still think that we should maintain the current compatible scheme though, in order to keep consistency. > With that being said: Would you prefer to have a sun50i prefix? I see > that having just "a64" on itself is not very specific. I'd say that having a DTSI in arch/arm64/boot/dts/sunxi/a64.dtsi would not bring a lot of confusion. If you're there, you know what you're dealing with already. If you feel like it makes the life easier to new or casual users, go ahead. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
