Re: [PATCH 1/7] arm64: dts: qcom: Rename sa8775p SoC to "lemans"

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 24/07/2025 14:47, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 7/23/25 10:29 AM, 'Krzysztof Kozlowski' via kernel wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 08:19:20PM +0530, Wasim Nazir wrote:
>>> SA8775P, QCS9100 and QCS9075 are all variants of the same die,
>>> collectively referred to as lemans. Most notably, the last of them
>>> has the SAIL (Safety Island) fused off, but remains identical
>>> otherwise.
>>>
>>> In an effort to streamline the codebase, rename the SoC DTSI, moving
>>> away from less meaningful numerical model identifiers.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Wasim Nazir <wasim.nazir@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/{sa8775p.dtsi => lemans.dtsi} | 0
>>>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sa8775p-ride.dtsi             | 2 +-
>>
>> No, stop with this rename.
>>
>> There is no policy of renaming existing files.
> 
> There's no policy against renaming existing files either.

There is, because you break all the users. All the distros, bootloaders
using this DTS, people's scripts.

> 
>> It's ridicilous. Just
>> because you introduced a new naming model for NEW SOC, does not mean you
>> now going to rename all boards which you already upstreamed.
> 
> This is a genuine improvement, trying to untangle the mess that you
> expressed vast discontent about..
> 
> There will be new boards based on this family of SoCs submitted either
> way, so I really think it makes sense to solve it once and for all,
> instead of bikeshedding over it again and again each time you get a new
> dt-bindings change in your inbox.
> 
> I understand you're unhappy about patch 6, but the others are
> basically code janitoring.

Renaming already accepted DTS is not improvement and not untangling
anything. These names were discussed (for very long time) and agreed on.
What is the point of spending DT maintainers time to discuss the sa8775p
earlier when year later you come and start reversing things (like in
patch 6).


Best regards,
Krzysztof