On Tuesday 25 October 2011 23:43:06 Stephen Warren wrote:

Marc Dietrich wrote at Tuesday, October 25, 2011 1:05 PM:

quoted

On Monday 24 October 2011 22:16:15 Stephen Warren wrote:

quoted

Marc Dietrich wrote at Saturday, October 22, 2011 2:17 PM:

quoted

* NOT FOR COMMIT *

This just adds the dts for paz00. I like to add it to board-dt
as
well as soon as I find out which tree to base it on.

...

quoted

+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra-paz00.dts

One thing that cross my mind when writing the TrimSlice support and
I
forgot to mention: Should these files be named ${soc}-${board}.dts
or
${vendor}-${board}.dts (tegra-paz00.dts or toshiba-paz00.dts or
compal-paz00.dts). I'm OK either way; just want to follow any
outside
expectations.

I also don't know. I prefer compal for paz00 because Toshiba's code name
was procyon (I think) and I don't want to change all the naming. Also
Toshiba showed no interest in helping us, so I don't see why they
should get the fame.

Well, it's more about correctly defining what the HW is than advertising,
fame, or support!

define "what the HW is". Warning: the following list is purely fictitious. Any 
similarities between the companies or products mentiond, real or imaginary, 
are coincidental.

	- company A creates a cpu (only the IP) and license it to company N.
	- company N adds some more stuff around it (interfaces, gpu, ...) and 
creates real cpu hw.
	- company T likes the cpu and asks company C to build a computer around it
	- company C takes the evaluation board from company N, modifies it a bit, 
and builds a whole netbook around it
	- company T gets the netbook from company C and adds a operating system 
which will displeased their customers

So how would you define that hw? Or the real question, who made it? And please 
don't take my second argument too serious. I just expressed my anger in an 
improper way at an improper place. Sorry for that.

Marc