Re: [PATCH] ARM: msm: Move msm devicetrees under a Qualcomm dir

[Rob Herring <robherring2@gmail.com>]

On 09/12/2013 01:15 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
> 
> On Sep 12, 2013, at 1:04 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Sep 12, 2013, at 12:06 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Kumar Gala
>>>> <galak@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sep 12, 2013, at 11:46 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Kumar Gala
>>>>>> <galak@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> Use the Qualcomm vendor prefix (qcom) as the directory
>>>>>>> name for Qualcomm MSM devicetrees going forward.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Let's not move just one platform like this. If we are to do
>>>>>> this, we should move everything, and that will be really
>>>>>> painful and needs to be done in a controlled manner,
>>>>>> probably scripted and right before a -rc1 or such.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Than I suggest we deal with it when we pull the device trees
>>>>> out of the kernel tree.
>>>>> 
>>>>> As such, I'd tell Rohit to go forward with the file being
>>>>> named apq8074-dragonboard.dtb for the time being.
>>>> 
>>>> My original request to please use a common prefix for your
>>>> product families stands. Please prefix with msm-*, or if you
>>>> have to, qcom-* instead, since you guys can't seem to make your
>>>> mind up on standard prefixes (msm, apq, etc).
>>> 
>>> This is silly, I dont see the reason to go with
>>> qcom-apq<SOC>-<BOARD>.dts and than in the future drop qcom- when
>>> we mostly likely shift to a dir structure.
>>> 
>>> As engineers we are all too aware of the lack of sanity in
>>> marketing names, but its what we have so we have to live with
>>> it.
>> 
>> And we all have a choice whether we let the marketing people's 
>> insanity spread into our engineering projects, or if we keep it as 
>> sane as possible in spite of them.
>> 
>> I wouldn't have an objection here if there was some sort of
>> rationale between what "apq" and "msm" means. But it seems like
>> qualcomm rolls a dice and decides if a platform will have one name
>> or the other. Dragonboard dmesg says msm<foo>. DTS file for the
>> same board says apq. DTSI file says one thing, overridden by the
>> dts to something else. Total chaos.
>> 
>> I would be fine with adding two instead of one (after all,
>> platforms like TI has this for AM* vs OMAP*, etc), but there _has_
>> to be some sort of consistency or you might just as well assign a
>> random string as name.
>> 
>> So, if you can't come up with a reasonable, rational and
>> consistent naming scheme (which, apparantly, you can't since your
>> marketing guys are in control of this and they don't get it right),
>> then at least prefix with a common string for the platform. That's
>> all I'm asking.
>> 
>> 
>> -Olof
> 
> I'm not sure get why the insanity of naming impacts anything, those
> people that care about the platforms know what names mean what.  Plus
> we have this same set of having to be in the know for other SoC
> already.  Freescale does this all the time in PPC land, they just do
> it with numbers and not prefixes.
> 
> I suggested doing a qcom/ dir, as it addresses your concern, of
> putting all of our mess in one place.  Just because every other
> SoC/mach/plat hasn't done that should stop us from at least doing it
> for qcom.
> 

As Stephen W has pointed out previously, the dtb filename itself is or
may be an ABI and the bootloader may be hardcoded to a name. So we
should avoid future renames.

Rob