On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 11:34 AM Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 9.03.2023 12:52, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 09/03/2023 08:53, Arınç ÜNAL wrote: > >> On 9.03.2023 00:19, Arınç ÜNAL wrote: > >>> On 9.03.2023 00:05, Rob Herring wrote: > >>>> On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 03:28:38AM +0300, arinc9.unal@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > >>>>> From: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>> > >>>>> This platform from Ralink was acquired by MediaTek in 2011. Then, > >>>>> MediaTek > >>>>> introduced these SoCs which utilise this platform. Rename the schemas to > >>>>> mediatek to address the incorrect naming. > >>>> > >>>> I said we don't do renames due to acquistions, you said that wasn't the > >>>> reason, but then that's your reasoning here. > >>> > >>> It's not a marketing/acquistion rename as the name of these SoCs were > >>> wrong from the get go. The information on the first sentence is to give > >>> the idea of why these SoCs were wrongfully named as the base platform > >>> that these new MediaTek SoCs share code with was called Ralink. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> To give you another example, *new* i.MX things are still called > >>>> 'fsl,imx...' and it has been how many years since merging with NXP? > >>> > >>> Ok this is a point I see now. Though, I fail to see how this is called > >>> renaming when there's only new SoCs (from NXP in this case) to be added. > >> > >> If I understand correctly, i.MX is a family from Freescale so the name > > > > It's the same "family" as your platform, because as you said: > > "introduced these SoCs which utilise this platform" > > > >> was kept the same on new SoC releases from NXP. I believe it's different > >> in this case here. There's no family name. The closest thing on the name > >> of the SoC model is, it's RT for Ralink, MT for MediaTek. > > > > It's not about the name. NXP took Freescale platform and since many > > years makes entirely new products, currently far, far away from original > > platform. > > > > That's the same case you have here - Mediatek took existing platform and > > started making new products with it. > > > >> > >> On top of that, mediatek strings already exist for MT SoCs already, at > >> least for MT7621. > >> > >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net-next.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mips/ralink.yaml?id=dd3cb467ebb5659d6552999d6f16a616653f9933#n83 > > > > NXP also has compatibles with nxp, thus still not that good reason. > > Ok, makes sense. Am I free to call the SoCs MediaTek, change the schema > name from ralink,mtXXXX-pinctrl.yaml to mediatek,mtXXXX-pinctrl.yaml > whilst keeping the compatible string ralink? > > I plan to do some cleanup on ralink.yaml as well. From what I > understand, I should change the mediatek,mt7621-soc compatible string to > ralink,mt7621-soc? You have to take care of these SoC strings since they are used in the very beginning of the ralink startup platforms for any single ralink SoC. See for example [0] and [1] (but they are in all soc init code). I think it is better to maintain the ralink.yaml file as it is. Best regards, Sergio Paracuellos [0]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.2.1/source/arch/mips/ralink/mt7621.c#L200 [1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.2.1/source/arch/mips/ralink/rt305x.c#L161 > > Arınç
