Re: [PATCH 0/5] arm: dts: linksys: rename codename to model

From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
To: Paul Spooren <mail@aparcar.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, jason@lakedaemon.net,
	gregory.clement@bootlin.com, daniel@makrotopia.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, freifunk@adrianschmutzler.de,
	robh+dt@kernel.org, kaloz@openwrt.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] arm: dts: linksys: rename codename to model
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2020 17:07:38 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ecf4dc01-81f8-a33d-b4a7-2065748993ed@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <004a2ef9c1e04f9ffbb9c3cc9907ca656a406713.camel@aparcar.org>


On 4/7/2020 4:38 PM, Paul Spooren wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> thank you very much for the quick response!
> 
> On Wed, 2020-04-08 at 00:46 +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 11:08:10AM -1000, Paul Spooren wrote:
>>> Linksys chose to use codenames for a few of their devices and sell
>>> their
>>> them under an entirely different name.
>>>
>>> codename  model name
>>> rango  -> wrt3200acm
>>> mamba  -> wrt1900ac
>>> cobra  -> wrt1900ac-v2
>>> caiman -> wrt1200ac
>>> shelby -> wrt1900acs
>>
>> Hi Paul
>>
>> There was quite a bit of discussion about this when the first board
>> was added. If i remember correctly, it was Mamba.
>>
>> Imre Kaloz, <kaloz@openwrt.org> was the one arguing for
>> the name armada-xp-linksys-mamba.dts.
>>
>> So it seems that openwrt.org has now come full circle?
> 
> I talked with three currently active OpenWrt core developers and all
> were in favor of a unification. I wasn't aware of any previous
> discussions nor any pro arguments to keep code names.
> 
> I've added Imre via CC so maybe he can share his opinion, too.
>>
>>> This introduces some extra loops in OpenWrt, a distribution
>>> specialized
>>> on embedded Internet facing devices, as both codename and model
>>> name are
>>> used within the build system. The double naming requires developers
>>> to
>>> keep track of that mapping and introduces inconsistencies:
>>>
>>> To build a specific device in OpenWrt profiles are used, named
>>> after the
>>> the compatible string for targets using device tree (similar to how
>>> .dts
>>> files are named in the linux source tree). However, the first item
>>> of
>>> the DT `compatible` list in this case is `linksys,rango`, which is
>>> inconsistent with the model name and not what common users would
>>> expect.
>>>
>>> Such double naming complicates currently the automatic search for
>>> firmware upgrade as the build system does not support such mapping.
>>> Ideally the first item of the DT `compatible` list would contain a
>>> string suitable to be used as a filename recognizable by normal
>>> users to
>>> belong to that device.
>>> With this patch set the Linksys device tree files are moved from
>>> containing the codename to contain a sanitized model name and also
>>> use
>>> it as first entry of the DT `compatible` list.
>>
>> I've no problems adding another compatible to the list. But i don't
>> like the idea of renaming the files. The file names could be
>> considered ABI! What installers/bootloaders are you going to break by
>> renaming them?
> 
> Are you okay with adding the new compatible string as first element of
> the list? This would already simplify the OpenWrt build system.

Having a mapping table between model names in OpenWrt profiles and .dts
file names in the kernel sources is not that complicated to maintain,
changing the kernel for that reason sounds a bit weak IMHO.
-- 
Florian

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel