From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Hilman Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ARM64: dts: amlogic: Add basic support for Amlogic S905X Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 13:43:39 -0700 Message-ID: <7ha8fcq26c.fsf@baylibre.com> References: <20160903082227.30559-1-narmstrong@baylibre.com> <20160903082227.30559-3-narmstrong@baylibre.com> <7e27e8c0-bb18-40d8-10d6-3928e66815c7@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: (Carlo Caione's message of "Mon, 12 Sep 2016 19:18:10 +0200") Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Carlo Caione Cc: Andreas =?utf-8?Q?F=C3=A4rber?= , Neil Armstrong , devicetree , open list , Carlo Caione , "open list:ARM/Amlogic Meson..." , linux-arm-kernel List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Carlo Caione writes: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 6:28 PM, Andreas F=C3=A4rber w= rote: > >>> +Boards with the Amlogic Meson GXL SoC shall have the following propert= ies: >>> + Required root node property: >>> + compatible: "amlogic,meson-gxl-s905x", "amlogic,meson-gxl"; >> >> Can we please use "amlogic,s905x", "amlogic,meson-gxl"? No need to >> complicate the name. Also affects .dtsi and .dts below. > > gxl !=3D s905x. > > AFAWK to the GXL family belong several different SoCs, like S905X, > S905D, etc... (see patch 3/3) > This is why we use meson-gxl-s905x, meson-gxl-s905d, etc... Correct. > We could s/meson-gxl-s905x/meson-s905x/ and > s/meson-gxl-s905d/meson-s905d/ but I honestly prefer this way because > we can clearly see which family the SoC belongs to (the Amlogic naming > convention is already messy enough). > I mean, yes it's longer, but it's for the sake of documentation IMO. +1 Kevin