[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <523205E1.2040704@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 13:20:17 -0500
From: Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>
To: Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>
CC: Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
David Brown <davidb@...eaurora.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org list" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rohit Vaswani <rvaswani@...eaurora.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: msm: Move msm devicetrees under a Qualcomm dir
On 09/12/2013 01:15 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On Sep 12, 2013, at 1:04 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sep 12, 2013, at 12:06 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Kumar Gala
>>>> <galak@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 12, 2013, at 11:46 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Kumar Gala
>>>>>> <galak@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> Use the Qualcomm vendor prefix (qcom) as the directory
>>>>>>> name for Qualcomm MSM devicetrees going forward.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's not move just one platform like this. If we are to do
>>>>>> this, we should move everything, and that will be really
>>>>>> painful and needs to be done in a controlled manner,
>>>>>> probably scripted and right before a -rc1 or such.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Than I suggest we deal with it when we pull the device trees
>>>>> out of the kernel tree.
>>>>>
>>>>> As such, I'd tell Rohit to go forward with the file being
>>>>> named apq8074-dragonboard.dtb for the time being.
>>>>
>>>> My original request to please use a common prefix for your
>>>> product families stands. Please prefix with msm-*, or if you
>>>> have to, qcom-* instead, since you guys can't seem to make your
>>>> mind up on standard prefixes (msm, apq, etc).
>>>
>>> This is silly, I dont see the reason to go with
>>> qcom-apq<SOC>-<BOARD>.dts and than in the future drop qcom- when
>>> we mostly likely shift to a dir structure.
>>>
>>> As engineers we are all too aware of the lack of sanity in
>>> marketing names, but its what we have so we have to live with
>>> it.
>>
>> And we all have a choice whether we let the marketing people's
>> insanity spread into our engineering projects, or if we keep it as
>> sane as possible in spite of them.
>>
>> I wouldn't have an objection here if there was some sort of
>> rationale between what "apq" and "msm" means. But it seems like
>> qualcomm rolls a dice and decides if a platform will have one name
>> or the other. Dragonboard dmesg says msm<foo>. DTS file for the
>> same board says apq. DTSI file says one thing, overridden by the
>> dts to something else. Total chaos.
>>
>> I would be fine with adding two instead of one (after all,
>> platforms like TI has this for AM* vs OMAP*, etc), but there _has_
>> to be some sort of consistency or you might just as well assign a
>> random string as name.
>>
>> So, if you can't come up with a reasonable, rational and
>> consistent naming scheme (which, apparantly, you can't since your
>> marketing guys are in control of this and they don't get it right),
>> then at least prefix with a common string for the platform. That's
>> all I'm asking.
>>
>>
>> -Olof
>
> I'm not sure get why the insanity of naming impacts anything, those
> people that care about the platforms know what names mean what. Plus
> we have this same set of having to be in the know for other SoC
> already. Freescale does this all the time in PPC land, they just do
> it with numbers and not prefixes.
>
> I suggested doing a qcom/ dir, as it addresses your concern, of
> putting all of our mess in one place. Just because every other
> SoC/mach/plat hasn't done that should stop us from at least doing it
> for qcom.
>
As Stephen W has pointed out previously, the dtb filename itself is or
may be an ABI and the bootloader may be hardcoded to a name. So we
should avoid future renames.
Rob
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists