On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 03:58:18PM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote: > Hi, > > On 08/02/16 15:54, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 05:51:51PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: > >> 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. > > > > I have to agree. Unless there is some agreement to move to another > > naming scheme, then just follow the same pattern. If sunXi is just a > > made up name outside of Allwinner to provide some logical grouping of > > SoCs, then yes, that probably should not have been done. > > So I still don't like it, but will not waste my time or energy on that > front. > > Maxime, do you want "allwinner,sun50i-a64" or would > "allwinner,sunxi-a64" be OK as well? The former will be fine. Thanks! Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
