On Wed, 3 May 2023 at 13:39, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, May 3, 2023, at 03:17, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 5:52 PM Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 02/05/2023 22:40, Rob Herring wrote: > >> > 'berlin' : 'berlin', > >> > 'pxa2' : 'pxa', > >> > 'pxa3' : 'pxa', > >> > 'pxa' : 'marvell', > >> > >> I'd question if it makes sense to split the pxa line. Yes, it was sold > >> by Intel to Marvell, but IIRC the devices still had some inheritance. > >> So, if we have the 'pxa' subdir, I'd move Marvell PXAs to that dir too. > > > > I think I probably split it because it was different maintainers. > > Though it doesn't look like pxa168 or pxa910 have any maintainer. They > > are a mixture of pxa and mmp I think. > > I think the original split here is probably the best we can do, > but there is no good way to do it because of the confusing naming > and the problem that there is no clear line between pxa and mmp. > As far as I can tell, the release timeline was: > > Intel pxa2xx (mach-pxa, xscale, still exists) > Intel pxa3xx (mach-pxa, xscale, still exists) > Intel pxa90x (never merged) > Marvell pxa93x (mach-pxa, xscale, removed in Linux-6.3, no DT) > Marvell pxa92x (never merged) > Marvell pxa91x (mach-mmp, pj1, still exists) > Marvell pxa168 (mach-mmp, pj1, still exists) > Marvell pxa95x (mach-pxa, pj4, long gone) > Marvell pxa688 (mach-mmp, pj4, known as mmp2) > > So with pxa93x out of the picture, we can simplify it as using > 'pxa' as the name for all the above chips with an Intel XScale > core, and 'marvell' for all the other ones that have a Marvell > core and exist in mach-mmp. Should it be 'intel' for pxa[23]xx then? > > Arnd -- With best wishes Dmitry
