From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Maxime Ripard Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: sun7i: dt: Add new MK808C device Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 18:47:21 +0100 Message-ID: <20150308174721.GL5085@lukather> References: <1425131004-8551-1-git-send-email-codekipper@gmail.com> <20150303071342.GB4713@lukather> <20150304203400.GR4911@lukather> Reply-To: linux-sunxi-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="gwtGiOGliFx8mAnm" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , To: Code Kipper , Arnd Bergmann , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland Cc: linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, devicetree , linux-sunxi List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org --gwtGiOGliFx8mAnm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Disposition: inline Hi, On Sat, Mar 07, 2015 at 09:41:54AM +0100, Code Kipper wrote: > > Don't your device has any brand on the case or the PCB? > > There is nothing on the PCB to reference a manufacturer, the actual packaging > and case are from the earlier MK808B and mention A9. There was only a > small sticker on the side to show that the contents was a MK808C. > I guess 'unknown' isn't a valid vendor name, Not really. I really don't know what's the policy to apply in such a case when we have a device that has no identified vendor. We need to give a vendor name, because the compatible is used to tell two devices apart, in the case where we would have to apply quirks for a particular devices. And if we have two devices (say a Marvlell and an Allwinner one), with the same name, and without any vendor, we're screwed. Maybe falling back to the SoC vendor, in our case, would make sense? Arnd? Rob? Mark? An opinion on this? Thanks, Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com --gwtGiOGliFx8mAnm--