On 02/03/2023 11:47, Arınç ÜNAL wrote: > On 2.03.2023 13:29, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 02/03/2023 11:22, Arınç ÜNAL wrote: >>>>> >>>>> ## Incorrect naming >>>>> >>>>> MT7620, MT7621, MT7628, and MT7688 SoCs are incorrectly called Ralink, >>>>> introduce new ralink->mediatek compatible strings to address it. >>>> >>>> So this part was addressed by Rob - we don't do it, because it does not >>>> matter. Ralink is now Mediatek, thus there is no conflict and no issues >>>> with different vendor used. >>> >>> I think Rob was rather addressing that updating compatible strings based >>> on acquisition or marketing whims is not permitted. This condition does >>> not apply here as these SoCs were never Ralink. >>> >>> I understand your point that Ralink is now MediaTek but still, calling >>> these SoCs Ralink would be a bit misleading, don't you think? >> >> Misleading yes, but also does not matter. At least matter not enough to >> justify ABI break, so you would need to deprecate old ones and keep >> everything backwards compatible. You still would affect 3rd party users >> of DTS, though... > > I intend to do just that. Introduce new mediatek strings, keep the old > ones so it's backwards compatible, therefore don't break the ABI. > > Instead of deprecating old strings, I intend to introduce the checks I > mentioned, on the schema, so the pin muxing bindings only apply if the > DT has got a string that won't match multiple schemas. This way it > shouldn't affect 3rd party DTs. I meant, 3rd party users of DTS. You will replace the compatible in the DTS, right? So the DTS exported and used in all other projects, OS, firmwares, bootloaders, out of tree kernel forks will stop working. Best regards, Krzysztof
