linux-kernel - Re: [linux-sunxi] [RFC PATCH] 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:	Tue, 5 Jan 2016 12:00:11 +0000
From:	Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>
To:	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
Cc:	Vishnu Patekar <vishnupatekar0510@...il.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
	Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, will.deacon@....com,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
	"linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com" <linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linux-sunxi] [RFC PATCH] drivers: pinctrl: add driver for
 Allwinner A64 SoC

Hi Maxime,

On 04/01/16 20:30, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi Andre,
> 
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 10:29:06AM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/Makefile b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/Makefile
>>>> index e080290..130e7bc 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/Makefile
>>>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/Makefile
>>>> @@ -12,5 +12,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20)               += pinctrl-sun7i-a20.o
>>>>  obj-$(CONFIG_PINCTRL_SUN8I_A23)                += pinctrl-sun8i-a23.o
>>>>  obj-$(CONFIG_PINCTRL_SUN8I_A23_R)      += pinctrl-sun8i-a23-r.o
>>>>  obj-$(CONFIG_PINCTRL_SUN8I_A33)                += pinctrl-sun8i-a33.o
>>>> +obj-$(CONFIG_PINCTRL_A64)              += pinctrl-a64.o
>>>
>>> Shouldn't this follow pinctrl config name like other sunXi SOCs?
>>> This should be PINCTRL_SUN??_A64.
>>
>> I never really got the reason we use those sunxi names in addition to
>> the SoC name in the first place, maybe apart from copying from some
>> Allwinner code.
>> Since I decided to not look at Allwinner's BSP at all (if avoidable), I
>> also thought it would be time to drop that sunxi naming, which looks
>> redundant to me.
>> Is there any reason why we would need this (beside having a rather
>> unique identifier prefix)?
> 
> It's mostly historical.
> 
> 
> Back when we started this, There was a few SoCs already out: A10,
> A10s, A12 and A13, which was very similar to the Cortex-A naming
> scheme (and I think the Cortex-A12 was also announced at the time).
> 
> We couldn't really use the SoC family either, since there was already
> multiple SoCs that were part of the same family (the A10s, A12 and
> A13, part of the sun5i family).
> 
> In order to avoid any confusion, we chose to go with both to uniquely
> and without any confusion possible, and we just went on with that
> naming scheme for consistency.

I see, thanks for the explanation.
I was wondering since we now move to a new architecture as well to avoid
this historic "ballast", but I have no problems with adding "_sun50i_"
to the identifiers and file names.
To me as only a casual sunxi user I found it mostly hard to memorize the
connections between the sunxi numbering and the SoC names (I just know
that the A20 is sun7i ;-). So for finding a specific dts for instance,
you have to start with the sunxi number to get it TAB completed ...

With that being said: Would you prefer to have a sun50i prefix? I see
that having just "a64" on itself is not very specific.

Please let me know so that I can amend the code for the next post.

Cheers,
Andre.
--
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/