From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: matt.porter@linaro.org (Matt Porter) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 20:04:13 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] bcm53xx: initial support for the BCM5301/BCM470X SoC with ARM CPU In-Reply-To: References: <1373982727-5492-1-git-send-email-hauke@hauke-m.de> <20130716151435.GB3871@linaro.org> <2043662.BcW19XTTMG@lenovo> <20130719020611.GA4941@glitch> <20130723185733.GB6811@ohporter.com> <20130724231106.GB29801@glitch> Message-ID: <20130726000412.GH5022@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 11:23:21PM +0100, Florian Fainelli wrote: > 2013/7/25 Domenico Andreoli : > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 08:05:28PM +0100, Florian Fainelli wrote: > >> 2013/7/23 Matt Porter : > >> > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 04:06:11AM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote: > >> >> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 12:08:30AM +0100, Florian Fainelli wrote: > >> >> > Hello, > >> >> > > >> >> > Le mardi 16 juillet 2013 11:14:36 Matt Porter a ?crit : > >> >> > > > + compatible = "brcm,bcm5301x"; > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Ok, this was nagging at me before I went on my very long > vacation. I see > >> >> > > the "brcm" vendor prefix as a real consistency problem. I noticed > on the > >> >> > > bcm281xx/kona family, we have been using "bcm" which is not > logged in > >> >> > > vendor-prefixes.txt as a legitimate prefix. I see that bcm2835 had > >> >> > > already established use of "brcm" before any of the bcm281xx > support > >> >> > > came in. Ideally, the vendor prefix should change to "bcm" since > every > >> >> > > reference in the family names is BCM. However, if others want the > least > >> >> > > amount of churn in making this consistent, we might have to go > with > >> >> > > "brcm" across the board. > >> >> > > >> >> > I would like to keep "brcm" here because that is what has been > defined as a > >> >> > vendor prefix, and is used beyond the scope of the ARM Linux kernel > support > >> >> > even within Broadcom. Maybe it was an oversight, or rather a > mistake to let > >> >> > >> >> brcm is the stock ticker. As far as I can search, this is the > convention > >> >> for the vendor prefixes. > >> > > >> > No, correlation does not equal causation. The fact that some vendor > >> > prefixes in DT match the stock symbol is by chance of 3-4 character > name > >> > being the same...nothing more. > >> > >> That was a bad argument as was later explained to me, I won't use that > >> reason again. > > > > I cited the stock ticker only because IIRC it's the reason my initial > > proposal for bcm has been ditched in favour of brcm when bcm2835 was > > initially proposed. > > > >> > It's pretty easy to see that the "ti" vendor prefix has no relation at > >> > all to their TXN symbol so that blows that convention out of the water. > >> > Rather, the prefix is based on somebody's notion of how that vendor's > >> > part are normally referred to. In TI-land, it's TI AM335x or TI OMAP, > >> > never TXN OMAP. :) > >> > > >> > For Broadcom, every part is BCMxxxxx so "bcm" is appropriate. > >> > >> It was appropriate before being the "wrong" vendor prefix was > >> allocated, now that "brcm" has been allocated we should stick to it > >> because otherwise we will break existing and on-going DT work. > > > > I still prefer bcm to brcm and I find enough evidence that bcm would be > > better in the long term. > > > > So if Broadcomers can agree on bcm, now it's still the cheapest time to > > fix in that direction, later will not be better. > > If we are to fix it in stone, once and for all, let's go for the full name > which would avoid any kind of future confusion (this also seems to be the > tendency with new vendor prefixes these days). That way we could make > everyone happy with say: "broadcom,bcm2835". Would that work for everyone? I really like that. -Matt