linux-kernel - Re: [linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 3/3] arm64: allwinner: dts: a64: add DT for PineTab developer sample

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, 1 Dec 2020 11:35:19 +0100
From:   Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>
To:     Clément Péron <peron.clem@...il.com>
Cc:     Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@...c.io>,
        Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...l.net>,
        linux-sunxi <linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 3/3] arm64: allwinner: dts: a64: add DT
 for PineTab developer sample

On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 10:07:27PM +0100, Clément Péron wrote:
> Hi Maxime, Icenowy,
> 
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2020 at 12:59, Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@...c.io> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > 于 2020年11月28日 GMT+08:00 下午7:54:04, "Clément Péron" <peron.clem@...il.com> 写到:
> > >Hi Icenowy,
> > >
> > >On Sat, 28 Nov 2020 at 12:28, Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@...c.io> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> 在 2020-11-28星期六的 11:38 +0100，Maxime Ripard写道：
> > >> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 09:10:38PM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > Okay. But I'm not satisfied with a non-public sample
> > >> > > > > > > > occupies
> > >> > > > > > > > the pinetab name. Is rename it to pinetab-dev and add a
> > >> > > > > > > > pinetab-retail okay?
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > To me, naming the production version anything but
> > >"pinetab"
> > >> > > > > > > isn't
> > >> > > > > > > satisfying either.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > I understand where you're coming from, but the point I was
> > >> > > > > > making my
> > >> > > > > > previous mail is precisely that it's not really possible.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > You want to name the early adopter version _the_ production
> > >> > > > > > version. Let's assume the hardware changes again between
> > >the
> > >> > > > > > early
> > >> > > > > > adopter and mass-production version. Which one will be
> > >_the_
> > >> > > > > > production version? The early-adopter or the mass-produced
> > >> > > > > > one?
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > There's really no good answer here, and both would suck in
> > >> > > > > > their
> > >> > > > > > own way. The only way to deal with this is to simply avoid
> > >> > > > > > defining one version as the one true board, and just
> > >loading
> > >> > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > proper DT in u-boot based on whatever clue we have of the
> > >> > > > > > hardware
> > >> > > > > > revision.
> > >> > > > > Then will it be okay to rename current pinetab DT to
> > >> > > > > pinetab-sample and then introduce new DTs all with suffixes?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > No. From my previous mail:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > It can be seen as dropping the PineTab DT and introduce new DTs
> > >> > > with
> > >> > > suffix.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Do we have rule that we cannot drop boards?
> > >> >
> > >> > Are you really arguing that removing a DT and then adding an
> > >> > identical
> > >> > one under a different name is not renaming it?
> > >>
> > >> Then we can just keep confusing name?
> > >
> > >Sorry maybe I missed some information
> > >But why don't you do like pinephone?
> >
> > They're the same board revision with different LCD panels.
> 
> I just ask Pine64 about this and here is the reply :
> "The PineTab LCD panel change was a last minutes before production
> starts that vendor advise us switch over to new LCD controller due to
> EoL concern".
> 
> "Pine64 communication" is not so bad we just need to ask and they reply :)
> 
> So the issue is not that the Product was not finalized but that one
> component arrives in EoL.
> This could also happens during a running production.

Like you said, it can happen pretty much any time, for any reason, so
the intent doesn't really matter here.

Maxime

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)