From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: csd@broadcom.com (Christian Daudt) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 17:10:52 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] bcm53xx: initial support for the BCM5301/BCM470X SoC with ARM CPU In-Reply-To: <20130723192203.GC6811@ohporter.com> References: <1373982727-5492-1-git-send-email-hauke@hauke-m.de> <20130716151435.GB3871@linaro.org> <2043662.BcW19XTTMG@lenovo> <20130723184907.GA6811@ohporter.com> <20130723192203.GC6811@ohporter.com> Message-ID: <51EF1B8C.9020304@broadcom.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 13-07-23 12:22 PM, Matt Porter wrote: >>>> 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. > It doesn't end there. An update to all the in process stuff has to > happen, plus the upstream stuff. So in both cases there are changes to > be made both upstream and with work-in-progress. The only difference is > that I was suggesting an update to correct the prefix in > vendor-prefixes.txt. > > However, if I'm the only one that cares enough to speak up for "bcm" > I'll abandon that and submit the patch to adjust bcm281xx to be > compliant with the current state of vendor-prefixes.txt. :) > bcm has been used internally but not consistently - about as consistently as brcm has been used in upstream :) Given that I've submitted most/all of the non-compliant code, I'll send a patch rectifying it and request internal team to switch to using brcm, for devicetree bindings, as atonement. If Matt doesn't beat me to it... Thanks, csd