Re: [PATCH v11 3/4] firmware: Rename google firmware directory to coreboot

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On 11/08/2026 22:21, Julius Werner wrote:
>>>>> Do not change this.
>>>>
>>>> I am surprised that such change appeared at v10.
>>>>
>>>> Changelog is quite incomplete and I do not see any explanation for this.
>>>
>>> Sorry, don't follow - so put the names back, or split it into its own patch?
>>
>> I did not find explanation of this in the changelog. It cuts at v9, so
>> maybe that's the reason, although lore pointed me the v10 as the first
>> version introducing new CONFIG symbols.
>>
>> Anyway, IMO renaming is really not worth if the sole reason is Google
>> name is disliked now.
> 
> Krzysztof, the idea with this change was to introduce the new Kconfig
> symbols that more accurately represent the new directory structure
> while keeping the old symbol names available as fallback symbols for
> people who continue using old .config files. Doesn't that avoid the
> pain to users you're concerned about? I thought doing renames like
> this cleanly was the whole point of the `transitional` feature in the
> Kconfig language. Why do we have that lever if we don't want to use it
> for the kind of cases it was meant for?

To me 'transitional' is when you actually make changes to drivers, their
dependencies or to whatever Kconfig hierarchy is there.

I do not consider marketing or pure "I do not like this name" as valid
reasons, because this is developer string (or kernel/distro
configurator) not end-user visible thing. And for us, the developers,
this marketing does not matter.

Anyway, defconfig change must be separate because it goes via different
tree, unless this is non bisectable. Keeping it here initially confused
me into thinking you are actually breaking use cases (which you are not).



Best regards,
Krzysztof