From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: shawn.guo@linaro.org (Shawn Guo)
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:25:58 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: dts: imx6sl reuses imx6q sdma firmware
In-Reply-To: <20130819162827-27661@mutt-kz>
References: <1376903386-27771-1-git-send-email-shawn.guo@linaro.org>
 <20130819123541-7656@mutt-kz>
 <20130819135315.GA28297@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net>
 <20130819162827-27661@mutt-kz>
Message-ID: <20130820062555.GC29114@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 06:28:27PM +0200, Luka Perkov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 09:53:17PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 02:35:42PM +0200, Luka Perkov wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 05:09:46PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > > Also, last patch containing sdma firmware blobs sent to the mailing list
> > > [1] uses "sdma-imx6.bin" name.
> > 
> > The patch never got merged.  I do not like the name, simply because imx6
> > is not a SoC name.
> 
> IMHO "sdma-imx6.bin" is much more descriptive then "sdma-imx6q.bin" in
> this case.

I take it opposite.  "sdma-imx6q.bin" tells that the firmware is created
for imx6q and gets reused on imx6sl, while "sdma-imx6.bin" tells nothing
about that compatibility info.

> 
> It could have been named "foobar" as far as I am concerned. But because
> it was named "sdma-imx6q.bin" in imx6qdl.dtsi error was made when new
> imx6sl.dtsi was created.

The error is there only because the author of imx6sl.dtsi (me) was not
aware of there is no imx6sl specific sdma firmware.

> Naming it "sdma-imx6.bin" or "sdma-imx6x.bin"
> would help avoiding confusions in the future (despite it's not SoC
> name).

Just for example, if the next imx6 SoC uses a different sdma firmware,
I guess "sdma-imx6.bin" or "sdma-imx6x.bin" would become the source
of confusion.

Shawn