Re: [PATCH 05/11] drivers: pinctrl: add driver for Allwinner A64 SoC

On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 03:58:18PM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote:

Hi,

On 08/02/16 15:54, Rob Herring wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 05:51:51PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:

quoted

Hi Andre,

On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 04:53:58PM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote:

quoted

quoted

So, droping it in the filenames, why not. But I'd really like to keep
the same compatible scheme.

And I still don't get this: in the DT compatible scheme we always have a
vendor prefix, so allwinner,a64 is surely not a mysterious ARM Ltd. core
or a new Apple SoC. Instead it is the A64 from Allwinner, full stop. So
why should we add an arbitrary and confusing sun50i naming to it (when
it actually should be more like "sun8i-a64").

I don't decide on their marketing names. And I know you want to start
anew with the arm64 SoCs, but the truth is, you don't. Most of the
compatibles in the DTSI are from earlier SoCs, and we have to keep
that legacy and remain consistent with it. With all the good and bad
things a legacy imply.

I have to agree. Unless there is some agreement to move to another 
naming scheme, then just follow the same pattern. If sunXi is just a 
made up name outside of Allwinner to provide some logical grouping of 
SoCs, then yes, that probably should not have been done.

So I still don't like it, but will not waste my time or energy on that
front.

Maxime, do you want "allwinner,sun50i-a64" or would
"allwinner,sunxi-a64" be OK as well?

The former will be fine.

Thanks!
Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com