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

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 8 Feb 2016 15:58:18 +0000
From:	Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>
To:	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
Cc:	Karsten Merker <merker@...ian.org>, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
	linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Vishnu Patekar <vishnupatekar0510@...il.com>,
	linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] drivers: pinctrl: add driver for Allwinner A64 SoC

Hi,

On 08/02/16 15:54, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 05:51:51PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>> Hi Andre,
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 04:53:58PM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote:
>>>> 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?

Cheers,
Andre.