On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 04:38:12PM -0400, Jim Quinlan wrote: > On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 12:58 AM Manivannan Sadhasivam > <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 05:31:26PM -0400, Jim Quinlan wrote: > > > The 'type' field used in the driver to discern SoC differences is confusing > > > so change it to the more apt 'model'. We considered using 'family' but > > > this conflicts with Broadcom's conception of a family; for example, 7216a0 > > > and 7216b0 chips are both considered separate families as each has multiple > > > derivative product chips based on the original design. > > > > > > > TBH, 'model' is also confusing :) Why can't you just use 'soc' as you are > > referrring to the SoC name. > > Hello, > > Well, the "model" we assign is not necessarily the same as the SoC. > If a new SoC has the same characteristics as a previous "model", we > will not create a new model but rather use the existing one. For example, > the bcm7216_cfg structure, which is for the 7216 SoC uses the model "BCM7278". > > I agree that this is not crystal clear but using SoC could be > considered misleading. > Ok, thanks for clarifying. Still I think you can use 'soc' prefix. For naming, how about 'soc_base'? This specifies the SoC baseline used by *this* Soc. - Mani -- மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
