From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andre Przywara Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] drivers: pinctrl: add driver for Allwinner A64 SoC Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 12:00:11 +0000 Message-ID: <568BB04B.30100@arm.com> References: <1451582246-32373-1-git-send-email-andre.przywara@arm.com> <568A4972.8030602@arm.com> <20160104203059.GG11722@lukather> Reply-To: andre.przywara-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160104203059.GG11722@lukather> List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , To: Maxime Ripard Cc: Vishnu Patekar , Linus Walleij , Chen-Yu Tsai , Hans de Goede , Catalin Marinas , will.deacon-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org, "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" , linux-gpio-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, "linux-sunxi-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org" , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org Hi Maxime, On 04/01/16 20:30, Maxime Ripard wrote: > Hi Andre, > > On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 10:29:06AM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote: >>>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/Makefile b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/Makefile >>>> index e080290..130e7bc 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/Makefile >>>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/Makefile >>>> @@ -12,5 +12,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20) += pinctrl-sun7i-a20.o >>>> obj-$(CONFIG_PINCTRL_SUN8I_A23) += pinctrl-sun8i-a23.o >>>> obj-$(CONFIG_PINCTRL_SUN8I_A23_R) += pinctrl-sun8i-a23-r.o >>>> obj-$(CONFIG_PINCTRL_SUN8I_A33) += pinctrl-sun8i-a33.o >>>> +obj-$(CONFIG_PINCTRL_A64) += pinctrl-a64.o >>> >>> Shouldn't this follow pinctrl config name like other sunXi SOCs? >>> This should be PINCTRL_SUN??_A64. >> >> I never really got the reason we use those sunxi names in addition to >> the SoC name in the first place, maybe apart from copying from some >> Allwinner code. >> Since I decided to not look at Allwinner's BSP at all (if avoidable), I >> also thought it would be time to drop that sunxi naming, which looks >> redundant to me. >> Is there any reason why we would need this (beside having a rather >> unique identifier prefix)? > > It's mostly historical. > > > Back when we started this, There was a few SoCs already out: A10, > A10s, A12 and A13, which was very similar to the Cortex-A naming > scheme (and I think the Cortex-A12 was also announced at the time). > > We couldn't really use the SoC family either, since there was already > multiple SoCs that were part of the same family (the A10s, A12 and > A13, part of the sun5i family). > > In order to avoid any confusion, we chose to go with both to uniquely > and without any confusion possible, and we just went on with that > naming scheme for consistency. I see, thanks for the explanation. I was wondering since we now move to a new architecture as well to avoid this historic "ballast", but I have no problems with adding "_sun50i_" to the identifiers and file names. To me as only a casual sunxi user I found it mostly hard to memorize the connections between the sunxi numbering and the SoC names (I just know that the A20 is sun7i ;-). So for finding a specific dts for instance, you have to start with the sunxi number to get it TAB completed ... With that being said: Would you prefer to have a sun50i prefix? I see that having just "a64" on itself is not very specific. Please let me know so that I can amend the code for the next post. Cheers, Andre.