Message-ID: <20201207100703.tfavhmexbtrzucry@gilmour>
Date:   Mon, 7 Dec 2020 11:07:03 +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 Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 10:03:16PM +0100, Clément Péron wrote:
> Hi Maxime
> 
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 11:35, Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> 
> Agree, that was more to support Pin64 guys here.
> 
> As pinetab compatible can't be reused maybe somethings like this :
> sun50i-a64-pinetab.dtsi
> sun50i-a64-pinetab-1.0-early-adopter.dtb
> sun50i-a64-pinetab-1.0.dtb or sun50i-a64-pinetab-retail.dtb. But
> retail is like prod it's not explicit.
> 
> What do you think ?

I already said what I think multiple times in this thread: the DT that
has been merged for the early adopter, devs, whatever, won't be renamed.
As far as I'm concerned, I don't care about the name that is picked for
the new version as long as everyone is clear on the fact that that name
won't change ever either.

Maxime

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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists