Hello Geert, Laurent, Morimoto-san,
On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 10:30:14AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> 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"....
I really appreciate your comments, but it looks like at least the
following open questions prevent this series to advance into v2 (feel
free to point out flaws in my understanding):
- [A] it is not clear if H3ULCB, M3ULCB and M3NULCB boards should use
a common compatible string or dedicated ones.
- [B] In case a common string is used for all *ULCB boards, should it
drop the unofficial "ulcb" (Ultra Low Cost Board, thanks Laurent)
in exchange to "sk", "starter-kit" or similar?
- [C] Same as [A] and [B], but applied to ULCB DTS filenames, which are
currently formed based on the same "ulcb" stem.
IMHO these questions go somewhat beyond the scope of M3-N ULCB bring-up.
In spite of this, I would be happy to implement your proposals. I am
also fine to wait a couple more days to collect more feedback, as well
as let the ideas/thoughts to settle. However, if you expect the latter
to take longer, maybe we can find some "acceptable" solution and defer
the naming issues to a later point?
Thanks,
Eugeniu.
