Re: [PATCH 1/7] arm64: dts: qcom: Rename sa8775p SoC to "lemans"

[Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>]

On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 09:36:42PM -0500, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2025 at 07:04:51PM +0100, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 08:59:38AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 5:52 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 24/07/2025 14:47, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> > > > > On 7/23/25 10:29 AM, 'Krzysztof Kozlowski' via kernel wrote:
> > > > >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 08:19:20PM +0530, Wasim Nazir wrote:
> > > > >>> SA8775P, QCS9100 and QCS9075 are all variants of the same die,
> > > > >>> collectively referred to as lemans. Most notably, the last of them
> > > > >>> has the SAIL (Safety Island) fused off, but remains identical
> > > > >>> otherwise.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> In an effort to streamline the codebase, rename the SoC DTSI, moving
> > > > >>> away from less meaningful numerical model identifiers.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Signed-off-by: Wasim Nazir <wasim.nazir@oss.qualcomm.com>
> > > > >>> ---
> > > > >>>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/{sa8775p.dtsi => lemans.dtsi} | 0
> > > > >>>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sa8775p-ride.dtsi             | 2 +-
> > > > >>
> > > > >> No, stop with this rename.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> There is no policy of renaming existing files.
> > > > >
> > > > > There's no policy against renaming existing files either.
> > > >
> > > > There is, because you break all the users. All the distros, bootloaders
> > > > using this DTS, people's scripts.
> > > 
> > > I think that is a valid argument against renaming the toplevel .dts
> > > (and therefore .dtb), but renaming .dtsi should be a harmless internal
> > > detail to the kernel.  And less confusing, IMHO, than
> > > qsc9100-myboard.dts #including sa8775p.dtsi.
> > > 
> > > So wouldn't the sensible way forward be to rename .dtsi but not .dts?
> > 
> > FWIIW, and with the dual caveats that: I do not have the full context of
> > this series; and SoCs are not somewhere where I am active these days:
> > 
> > I am also under the impression that, in general, renames to
> > match product or other organisational changes are a non-starter.
> > 
> 
> This is indeed a key reason for the new naming scheme. Until now we've
> named things based on the "product number" and we're here facing the
> introduction of the 3rd product name for the same die.
> 
> The purpose of this series is to detach from the product naming (and
> introduce the EVK board).

In general, something detached from product naming, and the whims thereof,
does seem sensible to me.

> > But reading over this patchset, I also felt that renaming the .dsti files
> > would improve things. And seems to have little scope to break things for
> > users.
> > 
> > </2c>
>