Hi Laurent,
On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 10:21 AM Laurent Pinchart
<laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 7 August 2018 11:18:11 EEST Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
> > > Yeah, it is true "so far". I think there is no problem on current kernel.
> > > But, unfortunately we need to keep compatibility for old/new DT
> > > (= actually, I don't like this DT rule. It is 100% "shackles for the
> > > legs")
> > > Thus, my big concern is that, in the future,
> > > "if" we added "renesas,ulcb" compatible driver/soc,
> > > both h3/m3 ulcb will use it.
> > > Then, if "h3" can work/boot by using same "m3" settings, it is no problem
> > > for me (= "works but limited" is also OK, of course.
> > >
> > > This means "matched to more generic compatible")
> >
> > "renesas,ulcb" is very generic naming.
> > Not only h3/m3, if we had v3/e3/d3 etc ulcb,
>
> Furthermore, "ulcb" is an unofficial term, the boards are named "starter kit"
> (SK). Using internal names in code or device tree sources is a normal practice
> and is fine with me, but I'm a bit bothered by the fact that the H3/M3 boards
> are called ULCB in DT, while the V3 board are called SK. I wonder if we should
> unify that or if it's too late.
Perhaps we should.
Renesas has a long history of boards named <foo>SK or RSK<foo>.
The inconsistency started when suddenly SK was spelled out in full, with
"Premier" or "Pro" added to differentiate, and the need arose for a shorter
nickname, which became "ULCB"....
> > and if we had such compatible driver/soc, it needs to match to all ulcb.
> > In reality, maybe we don't create such compatible driver, though.
> > But, I don't know, I can follow to maintainer opinion.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
