From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f67.google.com ([74.125.82.67]:54219 "EHLO mail-wm0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727530AbeHIAE2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Aug 2018 20:04:28 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f67.google.com with SMTP id s9-v6so4230879wmh.3 for ; Wed, 08 Aug 2018 14:42:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Eugeniu Rosca Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2018 23:42:41 +0200 To: Geert Uytterhoeven , Laurent Pinchart , Kuninori Morimoto Cc: Simon Horman , Geert Uytterhoeven , Yoshihiro Shimoda , Sergei Shtylyov , Vladimir Barinov , Niklas =?utf-8?Q?S=C3=B6derlund?= , Jacopo Mondi , Magnus Damm , Kieran Bingham , Takeshi Kihara , Ulrich Hecht , Linux-Renesas , Eugeniu Rosca , Eugeniu Rosca Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/14] dt-bindings: arm: don't embed SoC name into the ULCB boards' compatible Message-ID: <20180808214241.GA22682@x230> References: <20180804231114.21420-1-erosca@de.adit-jv.com> <87effbvw77.wl-kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> <87a7pywq7b.wl-kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> <1657886.YgBlprSStX@avalon> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-renesas-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hello Geert, Laurent, Morimoto-san, On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 10:30:14AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Laurent, > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 10:21 AM Laurent Pinchart > wrote: > > On Tuesday, 7 August 2018 11:18:11 EEST Kuninori Morimoto wrote: > > > > Yeah, it is true "so far". I think there is no problem on current kernel. > > > > But, unfortunately we need to keep compatibility for old/new DT > > > > (= actually, I don't like this DT rule. It is 100% "shackles for the > > > > legs") > > > > Thus, my big concern is that, in the future, > > > > "if" we added "renesas,ulcb" compatible driver/soc, > > > > both h3/m3 ulcb will use it. > > > > Then, if "h3" can work/boot by using same "m3" settings, it is no problem > > > > for me (= "works but limited" is also OK, of course. > > > > > > > > This means "matched to more generic compatible") > > > > > > "renesas,ulcb" is very generic naming. > > > Not only h3/m3, if we had v3/e3/d3 etc ulcb, > > > > Furthermore, "ulcb" is an unofficial term, the boards are named "starter kit" > > (SK). Using internal names in code or device tree sources is a normal practice > > and is fine with me, but I'm a bit bothered by the fact that the H3/M3 boards > > are called ULCB in DT, while the V3 board are called SK. I wonder if we should > > unify that or if it's too late. > > Perhaps we should. > > Renesas has a long history of boards named SK or RSK. > The inconsistency started when suddenly SK was spelled out in full, with > "Premier" or "Pro" added to differentiate, and the need arose for a shorter > nickname, which became "ULCB".... I really appreciate your comments, but it looks like at least the following open questions prevent this series to advance into v2 (feel free to point out flaws in my understanding): - [A] it is not clear if H3ULCB, M3ULCB and M3NULCB boards should use a common compatible string or dedicated ones. - [B] In case a common string is used for all *ULCB boards, should it drop the unofficial "ulcb" (Ultra Low Cost Board, thanks Laurent) in exchange to "sk", "starter-kit" or similar? - [C] Same as [A] and [B], but applied to ULCB DTS filenames, which are currently formed based on the same "ulcb" stem. IMHO these questions go somewhat beyond the scope of M3-N ULCB bring-up. In spite of this, I would be happy to implement your proposals. I am also fine to wait a couple more days to collect more feedback, as well as let the ideas/thoughts to settle. However, if you expect the latter to take longer, maybe we can find some "acceptable" solution and defer the naming issues to a later point? Thanks, Eugeniu.