From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: cavokz@gmail.com (Domenico Andreoli) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 00:29:12 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] bcm53xx: initial support for the BCM5301/BCM470X SoC with ARM CPU In-Reply-To: <51F2F554.8030709@broadcom.com> 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> <20130726000412.GH5022@linaro.org> <51F2F554.8030709@broadcom.com> Message-ID: <20130726222912.GC19469@glitch> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 03:16:52PM -0700, Christian Daudt wrote: > On 13-07-25 05:04 PM, Matt Porter wrote: > >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: > >>>>>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 > > > broadcom works for me also. > thanks, > csd seconded thanks, Domenico