From: maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com (Maxime Ripard)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: sun7i: dt: Add new MK808C device
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 15:50:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150309145044.GS5085@lukather> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9483321.y7yrfWRaG5@wuerfel>
On Sun, Mar 08, 2015 at 10:18:30PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sunday 08 March 2015 18:47:21 Maxime Ripard wrote:
> >
> > Not enough information to check signature validity. Show Details
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 07, 2015 at 09:41:54AM +0100, Code Kipper wrote:
> > > > Don't your device has any brand on the case or the PCB?
> > >
> > > There is nothing on the PCB to reference a manufacturer, the actual packaging
> > > and case are from the earlier MK808B and mention A9. There was only a
> > > small sticker on the side to show that the contents was a MK808C.
> > > I guess 'unknown' isn't a valid vendor name,
> >
> > Not really.
> >
> > I really don't know what's the policy to apply in such a case when we
> > have a device that has no identified vendor.
> >
> > We need to give a vendor name, because the compatible is used to tell
> > two devices apart, in the case where we would have to apply quirks for
> > a particular devices.
> >
> > And if we have two devices (say a Marvlell and an Allwinner one), with
> > the same name, and without any vendor, we're screwed.
> >
> > Maybe falling back to the SoC vendor, in our case, would make sense?
> >
> > Arnd? Rob? Mark? An opinion on this?
> >
>
> I don't really have a good idea. In this case the SoC vendor might
> not be the worst choice, because it's likely to be very close to
> some reference design they actually did.
>
> Another possibility would be to use a string that refers to the
> organization that does the upstream kernel support, but that's
> harder for individuals that do not work for a company that wants
> its name used that way.
Yeah, I don't really think that would be applicable for individuals,
and would understand if people wouldn't like to follow such policy
(I'm not even sure I would).
At least, the SoC vendor name would be consistent, without being very
touchy.
Maxime
--
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20150309/3459ee38/attachment.sig>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard-wi1+55ScJUtKEb57/3fJTNBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd-r2nGTMty4D4@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Code Kipper <codekipper-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
Rob Herring <robherring2-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>,
linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org,
devicetree <devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
linux-sunxi <linux-sunxi-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: sun7i: dt: Add new MK808C device
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 15:50:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150309145044.GS5085@lukather> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9483321.y7yrfWRaG5@wuerfel>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1990 bytes --]
On Sun, Mar 08, 2015 at 10:18:30PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sunday 08 March 2015 18:47:21 Maxime Ripard wrote:
> >
> > Not enough information to check signature validity. Show Details
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 07, 2015 at 09:41:54AM +0100, Code Kipper wrote:
> > > > Don't your device has any brand on the case or the PCB?
> > >
> > > There is nothing on the PCB to reference a manufacturer, the actual packaging
> > > and case are from the earlier MK808B and mention A9. There was only a
> > > small sticker on the side to show that the contents was a MK808C.
> > > I guess 'unknown' isn't a valid vendor name,
> >
> > Not really.
> >
> > I really don't know what's the policy to apply in such a case when we
> > have a device that has no identified vendor.
> >
> > We need to give a vendor name, because the compatible is used to tell
> > two devices apart, in the case where we would have to apply quirks for
> > a particular devices.
> >
> > And if we have two devices (say a Marvlell and an Allwinner one), with
> > the same name, and without any vendor, we're screwed.
> >
> > Maybe falling back to the SoC vendor, in our case, would make sense?
> >
> > Arnd? Rob? Mark? An opinion on this?
> >
>
> I don't really have a good idea. In this case the SoC vendor might
> not be the worst choice, because it's likely to be very close to
> some reference design they actually did.
>
> Another possibility would be to use a string that refers to the
> organization that does the upstream kernel support, but that's
> harder for individuals that do not work for a company that wants
> its name used that way.
Yeah, I don't really think that would be applicable for individuals,
and would understand if people wouldn't like to follow such policy
(I'm not even sure I would).
At least, the SoC vendor name would be consistent, without being very
touchy.
Maxime
--
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-09 14:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-28 13:43 [PATCH] ARM: sun7i: dt: Add new MK808C device codekipper at gmail.com
2015-02-28 13:43 ` codekipper-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w
2015-03-03 7:13 ` Maxime Ripard
2015-03-03 7:13 ` Maxime Ripard
2015-03-03 20:22 ` Code Kipper
2015-03-03 20:22 ` Code Kipper
2015-03-04 20:34 ` Maxime Ripard
2015-03-04 20:34 ` Maxime Ripard
2015-03-07 8:41 ` Code Kipper
2015-03-07 8:41 ` Code Kipper
2015-03-08 17:47 ` Maxime Ripard
2015-03-08 17:47 ` Maxime Ripard
2015-03-08 21:18 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-03-08 21:18 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-03-09 14:50 ` Maxime Ripard [this message]
2015-03-09 14:50 ` Maxime Ripard
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-04-28 18:01 codekipper at gmail.com
2015-04-28 18:01 ` codekipper-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w
2015-04-29 20:30 ` Maxime Ripard
2015-04-29 20:30 ` Maxime Ripard
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150309145044.GS5085@lukather \
--to=maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.