[PATCH] bcm53xx: initial support for the BCM5301/BCM470X SoC with ARM CPU

[matt.porter@linaro.org (Matt Porter)]

On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 11:23:21PM +0100, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> 2013/7/25 Domenico Andreoli <cavokz@gmail.com>:
> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 08:05:28PM +0100, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> >> 2013/7/23 Matt Porter <matt.porter@linaro.org>:
> >> > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 04:06:11AM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 12:08:30AM +0100, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> >> >> > Hello,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Le mardi 16 juillet 2013 11:14:36 Matt Porter a ?crit :
> >> >> > > > + compatible = "brcm,bcm5301x";
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Ok, this was nagging at me before I went on my very long
> vacation. I see
> >> >> > > the "brcm" vendor prefix as a real consistency problem. I noticed
> on the
> >> >> > > bcm281xx/kona family, we have been using "bcm" which is not
> logged in
> >> >> > > vendor-prefixes.txt as a legitimate prefix. I see that bcm2835 had
> >> >> > > already established use of "brcm" before any of the bcm281xx
> support
> >> >> > > came in. Ideally, the vendor prefix should change to "bcm" since
> every
> >> >> > > reference in the family names is BCM. However, if others want the
> least
> >> >> > > amount of churn in making this consistent, we might have to go
> with
> >> >> > > "brcm" across the board.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I would like to keep "brcm" here because that is what has been
> defined as a
> >> >> > vendor prefix, and is used beyond the scope of the ARM Linux kernel
> support
> >> >> > even within Broadcom. Maybe it was an oversight, or rather a
> mistake to let
> >> >>
> >> >> brcm is the stock ticker. As far as I can search, this is the
> convention
> >> >> for the vendor prefixes.
> >> >
> >> > No, correlation does not equal causation. The fact that some vendor
> >> > prefixes in DT match the stock symbol is by chance of 3-4 character
> name
> >> > being the same...nothing more.
> >>
> >> That was a bad argument as was later explained to me, I won't use that
> >> reason again.
> >
> > I cited the stock ticker only because IIRC it's the reason my initial
> > proposal for bcm has been ditched in favour of brcm when bcm2835 was
> > initially proposed.
> >
> >> > It's pretty easy to see that the "ti" vendor prefix has no relation at
> >> > all to their TXN symbol so that blows that convention out of the water.
> >> > Rather, the prefix is based on somebody's notion of how that vendor's
> >> > part are normally referred to. In TI-land, it's TI AM335x or TI OMAP,
> >> > never TXN OMAP. :)
> >> >
> >> > For Broadcom, every part is BCMxxxxx so "bcm" is appropriate.
> >>
> >> It was appropriate before being the "wrong" vendor prefix was
> >> allocated, now that "brcm" has been allocated we should stick to it
> >> because otherwise we will break existing and on-going DT work.
> >
> > I still prefer bcm to brcm and I find enough evidence that bcm would be
> > better in the long term.
> >
> > So if Broadcomers can agree on bcm, now it's still the cheapest time to
> > fix in that direction, later will not be better.
> 
> If we are to fix it in stone, once and for all, let's go for the full name
> which would avoid any kind of future confusion (this also seems to be the
> tendency with new vendor prefixes these days). That way we could make
> everyone happy with say: "broadcom,bcm2835". Would that work for everyone?

I really like that.

-Matt