On 2.03.2023 13:47, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:

On 2.03.2023 13:29, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

On 02/03/2023 11:22, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

## Incorrect naming

MT7620, MT7621, MT7628, and MT7688 SoCs are incorrectly called Ralink,
introduce new ralink->mediatek compatible strings to address it.

So this part was addressed by Rob - we don't do it, because it does not
matter. Ralink is now Mediatek, thus there is no conflict and no issues
with different vendor used.

I think Rob was rather addressing that updating compatible strings based
on acquisition or marketing whims is not permitted. This condition does
not apply here as these SoCs were never Ralink.

I understand your point that Ralink is now MediaTek but still, calling
these SoCs Ralink would be a bit misleading, don't you think?

Misleading yes, but also does not matter. At least matter not enough to
justify ABI break, so you would need to deprecate old ones and keep
everything backwards compatible. You still would affect 3rd party users
of DTS, though...

I intend to do just that. Introduce new mediatek strings, keep the old 
ones so it's backwards compatible, therefore don't break the ABI.

Instead of deprecating old strings, I intend to introduce the checks I 
mentioned, on the schema, so the pin muxing bindings only apply if the 
DT has got a string that won't match multiple schemas. This way it 
shouldn't affect 3rd party DTs.

I'm looking at this again and I see that doing this brings more issues 
than it solves. I think deprecating the old strings from the schemas is 
better. They will be on the driver anyway so newer kernels will still 
work fine with old DTs.

Arınç

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel