From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Maxime Ripard Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] initial support for "suniv" Allwinner new ARM9 SoC Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 13:14:35 +0100 Message-ID: <20180122121435.bpayxk4uzfqbhqse@flea.lan> References: <20180119231735.61504-1-icenowy@aosc.io> Reply-To: maxime.ripard-wi1+55ScJUtKEb57/3fJTNBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="jeuhtqwctfssk4ie" Return-path: Sender: linux-sunxi-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180119231735.61504-1-icenowy-h8G6r0blFSE@public.gmane.org> List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , To: Icenowy Zheng Cc: Chen-Yu Tsai , Russell King , Daniel Lezcano , Marc Zyngier , Linus Walleij , devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-clk-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-gpio-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-sunxi-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org --jeuhtqwctfssk4ie Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Disposition: inline On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 07:17:26AM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote: > This is the RFC initial patchset for the "new" Allwinner SUNIV ARM9 SoC. > > The same die is packaged differently, come with different co-packaged > DRAM or shipped with different SDK; and then made many model names: F23, > F25, F1C100A, F1C100S, F1C200S, F1C500, F1C600, R6, etc. These SoCs all > share a common feature set and are packaged similarly (eLQFP128 for SoCs > without co-packaged DRAM, QFN88 for with DRAM). As their's no > functionality hidden on the QFN88 models (except DRAM interface not > exported), it's not clever to differentiate them. So I will use suniv as > common name of all these SoCs. Where is that suniv prefix coming from? And you need to have a SoC in all your compatibles. This isn't about being clever or not, this is just a matter of being able to accurately read in a crystal ball. Or maybe it's just the same, in which case, I'd really like to have a course :) You should really answer two questions here: - Are you able to predict whether you'll find an SoC part of that family in the future that derives a bit and will need a compatible of its own? - Are you able to predict which quirks we'll need along the way to support all the SoCs you've listed there? If you can't answer yes to both these questions, with a 100% certainty, then you'll need a SoC name in the compatible. Which doesn't prevent you from sharing as much as possible the DT like we did between the A10s and the A13 for example. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com --jeuhtqwctfssk4ie--