On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 10:09 PM Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 9.03.2023 14:33, Sergio Paracuellos wrote: > > 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. > > I'd really rather address this inconsistency everywhere possible. The > code you pointed out looks different than what I did on the pinctrl > driver but, surely it's possible on the code to introduce ralink and > keep the mediatek string for the sake of old DTs, no? In any case, the changes you might have in mind for this should be a different patch series. Best regards, Sergio Paracuellos > > Arınç
