From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E384C433EF for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2022 09:45:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S236376AbiA2Jp1 (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Jan 2022 04:45:27 -0500 Received: from mail.z3ntu.xyz ([128.199.32.197]:43336 "EHLO mail.z3ntu.xyz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234124AbiA2JpZ (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Jan 2022 04:45:25 -0500 Received: from g550jk.localnet (ip-213-127-106-2.ip.prioritytelecom.net [213.127.106.2]) by mail.z3ntu.xyz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 90B00CACAF; Sat, 29 Jan 2022 09:45:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=z3ntu.xyz; s=z3ntu; t=1643449523; bh=zQkC1QYsOvP0xeltftJt85NawEUy23u3cA/wx9Ewofw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=IpJMuvhOdripEPz6XDpw6ktN29te+2YyoYuCmvISHCt8R9pbBCPUZcFXrMdIeISF6 WrEBHFhW4D73kscbB4WezUNy30zlZeJkRaUt0TbuuyI2BF9HURmmMU+vFtwy/MakZ4 xe/UGOsBg97pr0k6GelkyPsA9m/xqJHURBcM1Usc= From: Luca Weiss To: Petr Vorel , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski Cc: Shawn Guo , Oleksij Rempel , Sam Ravnborg , Linus Walleij , Daniel Palmer , Max Merchel , Hao Fang , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jean THOMAS Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] dt-bindings: vendor-prefixes: add LG Electronics Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2022 10:45:23 +0100 Message-ID: <3398674.ElGaqSPkdT@g550jk> In-Reply-To: <64ee2334-aa99-7226-8946-84c95676041a@canonical.com> References: <5883435.31r3eYUQgx@g550jk> <64ee2334-aa99-7226-8946-84c95676041a@canonical.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Krzysztof, On Freitag, 28. J=E4nner 2022 10:57:15 CET Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 27/01/2022 21:51, Luca Weiss wrote: > > Hi all, > >=20 > > On Donnerstag, 27. J=E4nner 2022 08:45:33 CET Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 27/01/2022 01:20, Petr Vorel wrote: > >>> Hi all, > >>>=20 > >>>>> Hi Krzysztof, > >>>>>=20 > >>>>> On Montag, 13. September 2021 10:49:43 CEST Krzysztof Kozlowski wro= te: > >>>>>> On 12/09/2021 01:27, Luca Weiss wrote: > >>>>>>> LG Electronics is a part of the LG Corporation and produces, amon= gst > >>>>>>> other things, consumer electronics such as phones and smartwatche= s. > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>> Thanks for the patches. > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>> I think "lge" it's the same prefix as "lg". There is no sense in > >>>>>> having > >>>>>> multiple vendor prefixes just because company splits inside busine= ss > >>>>>> units or subsidiaries. The same as with other conglomerates, e.g. > >>>>>> Samsung - if we wanted to be specific, there will be 4-5 Samsung > >>>>>> vendors... Not mentioning that company organisation is not always > >>>>>> disclosed and can change. > >>>>>=20 > >>>>> I was mostly following qcom-msm8974-lge-nexus5-hammerhead as it's t= he > >>>>> other LG device tree I am aware of so I've picked lge instead of lg. > >>>>> Also worth noting that Google uses "LGE" in the Android device tree= [1] > >>>>> or in the model name in the LG G Watch R kernel sources ("LGE APQ > >>>>> 8026v2 LENOK rev-1.0") > >>>>=20 > >>>> [1] Does not point to kernel tree. Downstream user could be a good > >>>> argument to switch to lge, but then I would expect correcting other > >>>> "lg" > >>>> devices which are in fact made by LGE. > >>>>=20 > >>>>> I don't have a strong opinion either way so I'm fine with either. > >>>>>=20 > >>>>> If we decide to go with "lg" do we want to change the Nexus 5 > >>>>> devicetree > >>>>> (hammerhead) also, that one has the lge name in at least compatible > >>>>> and > >>>>> filename (I don't know how much of a breaking change that would be > >>>>> considered as). > >>>>=20 > >>>> We would have to add a new one and mark the old compatible as > >>>> deprecated. > >>>=20 > >>> Have we sorted this lg- vs. lge- ? > >>>=20 > >>> There are both: > >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-msm8974-lge-nexus5-hammerhead.dts > >>> vs > >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-apq8026-lg-lenok.dts > >>=20 > >> Probably renaming/unifying/correcting prefix in existing compatibles is > >> not worth the effort. This would make a mess and affect other DTS user= s. > >=20 > > If wanted I can send a patch renaming the Nexus 5 to just LG, this would > > adjust both compatible in the file (which shouldn't really affect > > anything) and the filename (which probably will affect various scripts > > and whatnot used by existing users of the dtb). > > Is this something that can be done in mainline or should we rather just > > let it be? I'm not sure what the policies there are. >=20 > The "lge" compatible is already in the bindings, so it should not be > changed without valid reason. Imagine there is an user-space code > parsing compatibles to adjust some power-management settings to > different models. It would be broken now. >=20 > What could be done is to mark it as deprecated and a add new one: > compatible =3D "lg,hammerhead", "lge,hammerhead", "qcom,msm8974"; > This should be safe for user-space and allow transition to common "lg". What can or should be done about the filename then? =46or compatible in the file it's now clear from my side. Regards Luca >=20 > Best regards, > Krzysztof