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]

Message-ID: <20160208155405.GA4677@rob-hp-laptop>
Date:	Mon, 8 Feb 2016 09:54:05 -0600
From:	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
Cc:	Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>,
	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

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.

Rob