Re: [PATCH 3/5] dt-bindings: arm: Document Socionext MB86S71 and Fujitsu F-Cue

["Andreas Färber" <afaerber-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org>]

Hi everyone,

The non-building clk driver has been removed for 4.14, but this patchset
seems stuck on matters of naming and maintenance...

Am 30.06.2017 um 01:18 schrieb Masahiro Yamada:
> Hi Andreas,
> 
> 2017-06-29 21:53 GMT+09:00 Andreas Färber <afaerber-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org>:
>> Hi Masahiro-san,
>>
>> Am 29.06.2017 um 14:18 schrieb Masahiro Yamada:
>>> 2017-06-29 1:46 GMT+09:00 Rob Herring <robh-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>:
>>>> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 07:00:18PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>>>> For consistency with existing SoC bindings, use "fujitsu,mb86s71" but
>>>>> socionext.txt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Färber <afaerber-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/socionext.txt | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>>>>>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>>>>>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/socionext.txt
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
>>>> --
>>>
>>> I do not mind this, but
>>> please note there are multiple product lines in Socionext
>>> because Socionext merged LSI divisions from Panasonic and Fujitsu.
>>>
>>> I maintain documents for Socionext UniPhier SoC family
>>> (which inherits SoC architecture of Panasonic)
>>> in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/uniphier/.
>>
>> Actually you seemed to be lacking bindings beyond the cache controller
>> for Uniphier:
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/uniphier
>>
>> The SoC compatible, e.g. "socionext,uniphier-ld11", needs to be defined
>> somewhere too, as done here. A git-grep for that particular compatible
>> only finds derived clk and reset bindings.
> 
> I can care to send a patch later, but it is off-topic here.

[The relevance was that had there been any bindings precedence from
UniPhier, it would've influenced my naming choices.]

>> Using socionext.txt allows you to add those bindings to a shared file;
>> if you prefer to host them separately below uniphier/ or as uniphier.txt
> 
> I was thinking of this way.
> 
> For example, TI has omap/, keystone/, davinci.txt, etc.
> in this directory level.
> 
> 
>> do you have a better name suggestion for this one? I was trying to keep
>> our options open to later add SC2A11 in socionext.txt, and I also saw
>> some mb8ac300 or so (MB86S7x predecessor?) in downstream sources, so I
>> don't know a good common name for the non-Panasonic parts. And if we
>> take fujitsu.txt for MB86S7x to match the vendor prefix then we will
>> need a separate file for the new SC2A11 IIUC.
> 
> I have no idea.
> Actually, I am not familiar with those SoCs.
> 
> I am not sure if there exists a common name for those Fujitsu-derived SoCs.
> I think a SoC family name will be helpful to avoid proliferating
> arch/arm/mach-{mb86s7x,mb8ac300, ...}.
> 
> I see some Socionext guys CC'ed in this mail,
> somebody might have information about this.
> 
> As I said before, I do not mind adding socionext.txt
> and it seems reasonable enough
> if there is no common name for those SoCs.
> 
> 
> 
>> Also if you can tell us where the cut between Fujitsu and Socionext
>> should be done, we can certainly adapt. NXP is still adding all their
>> new SoCs in fsl.txt, it seems.
>> (A similar naming issue exists for my not-yet-submitted FM4 patches,
>> where it changed owners from Fujitsu to Spansion and then to Cypress.)
>>
> 
> Right, vendor names are not future-proof in some cases.
> 
> We use "uniphier" because it is convenient to
> make a group of SoCs with similar architecture,
> and it will work even if UniPhier product lines are sold again in the
> future.  :-)

Summarizing: Masahiro-san only wants to maintain the UniPhier family of
Socionext SoCs, not this MB86S71. No one from Socionext or Linaro has
volunteered as maintainer for these F-Cue MB86S71 patches - that seems
to indicate I'll again have to set up a new repository and start
maintaining it myself.

Naming it linux-socionext.git wouldn't quite be right due to UniPhier
also being Socionext.

It's also unclear whether and by whom there may be SC2A11 patches - I
hear for now Linaro are maintaining a SynQuacer DT in EDK2, rebelling
against linux.git.

So... what about naming it linux-fujitsu.git? Then we could keep the
"fujitsu," vendor prefix and document compatibles in a fujitsu.txt for
consistency (instead of this v1's socionext.txt), and I could later add
non-Socionext FM4 (Spansion/Cypress) to the same tree and bindings file.

That still leaves conflict potential with the upcoming Fujitsu Post-K
chip, but we could still worry about that if it ever results in DT
bindings patches rather than just ACPI tables.

Objections, suggestions?

Thanks,
Andreas

-- 
SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html