From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arend@broadcom.com (Arend van Spriel) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 21:14:49 +0200 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> <20130723184907.GA6811@ohporter.com> Message-ID: <51EED629.1000404@broadcom.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 07/23/2013 08:56 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote: > If you want to add more confusion, because there is, > drivers/staging/bcm which stands for Beceem has been later acquired by > Broadcom, eventually turning this 3 letter word into something > "consistent" from a Broadcom point of view. As far as I am concerned, > I would just stick with the allocated vendor prefix and replace "bcm" > with "brcm" because the allocated one is the authoritative one. Nice, huh. In device-tree notation it identifies the vendor and I agree that brcm is a better/preferred vendor id. The confusion here is that the device identifiers are all prefixed with "bcm", which is something different than the vendor id. I do not think consistency was the goal in the acquisition of Beceem ;-) >> > >>> >>the bcm281x/kona family support code be merged and use "bcm" there, without >>> >>registering it. Besides, a simple rule of number here wins: >>> >> >>> >>git grep "brcm," * | wc -l >>> >>63 >>> >>git grep "bcm," * | wc -l >>> >>25 >>> >> >>> >>(as of Linux 3.11-rc1) >>> >> >>> >>So consistency we should get the bcm281x/kona DT bindings to rename their >>> >>vendor prefix as well. >> > >> >I believe getting this "right" is far more important than the difference >> >in churn of a mere 38 instances of use of brcm. "Right" is two things: >> >1) it needs to be consistent 2) it should be what makes sense. > I agree, which is the reason why I would stick with the vendor prefix > and end the story there. Agree. > -- > Florian Regards, Arend