Hi Andre, On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 04:53:58PM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote: > > So, droping it in the filenames, why not. But I'd really like to keep > > the same compatible scheme. > > And I still don't get this: in the DT compatible scheme we always have a > vendor prefix, so allwinner,a64 is surely not a mysterious ARM Ltd. core > or a new Apple SoC. Instead it is the A64 from Allwinner, full stop. So > why should we add an arbitrary and confusing sun50i naming to it (when > it actually should be more like "sun8i-a64"). I don't decide on their marketing names. And I know you want to start anew with the arm64 SoCs, but the truth is, you don't. Most of the compatibles in the DTSI are from earlier SoCs, and we have to keep that legacy and remain consistent with it. With all the good and bad things a legacy imply. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
