Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 22 May 2014 10:48:16 +0200 | From | Nicolas Ferre <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] at91: DT for 3.16 #2 |
| |
On 21/05/2014 23:51, Olof Johansson : > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Alexandre Belloni > <alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 21/05/2014 at 14:11:05 -0700, Olof Johansson wrote : >>>> This directory is flat, the board names are chosen by companies and >>>> people that we do not control, a user tend to like finding his preferred >>>> board dtb file unchanged from a kernel revision to another... >>>> Well all this lead me to think that we don't have to loose too much time >>>> thinking about a new strict convention for this file naming or changing >>>> all this once again just for the sake of it. >>>> >>>> Other SoC maintainers beautifully designed from the beginning the naming >>>> scheme of their DT files, fine. AT91 did not and forgive me but when >>>> opening arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile file and seeing some file names, I'm >>>> not ashamed. Moreover, now that I said to everybody since 3.10 to prefix >>>> their *board* name with "at91-", I have to say something else, I don't >>>> think it is worth it. >>> >>> I don't agree with everything above, but it's not worth arguing for the >>> sake of arguing. :) I think we can tweak what you're doing now and get >>> things to work well by merging new dts files with at91-<soc>-board.dts >>> as the name. As mentioned, don't worry about the existing files. This >>> shouldn't be a significiant change to what you've been telling people >>> since 3.10 to cause much confusion. >>> >> >> I'm not sure we should keep the at91 prefix. The sama5d3 series is not >> at91. > > *headdesk* It's part of mach-at91. For all intents and purposes, the label fits.
*double facepalm* Alexandre... always teasing ;-)
(found "double facepalm" while searching for headdesk in google image, was fun...)
>> I would suggest using <soc>-<vendor>-<board> in the future, like what is >> done for mvebu, berlin and some omap3 and freescale boards. I would >> however make an exception for the evaluation kits and keep the current >> "<soc>ek" name (else we would get sama5d3-atmel-sama5d3ek). > > Nack on this as a hard rule. As long as there's a vendor or (large > family) SoC prefix I don't care about the rest of the structure. > Really, let's not waste time on it at this time. > >> I also got confused by the at91- prefix when looking for a few dts files >> but I think it is too late to rename now or maybe we could do it all at >> once for a long term release (provided we know which one it will be). >> >> For reference, the list of files that would need renaming: >> animeo_ip.dts >> at91-ariag25.dts >> at91-cosino.dtsi >> at91-cosino_mega2560.dts >> at91-foxg20.dts >> at91-qil_a9260.dts >> ethernut5.dts >> ge863-pro3.dtsi >> kizbox.dts >> mpa1600.dts >> pm9g45.dts >> tny_a9260.dts >> tny_a9263.dts >> tny_a9g20.dts >> usb_a9260.dts >> usb_a9263.dts >> usb_a9g20_common.dtsi >> aks-cdu.dts >> evk-pro3.dts >> at91-sama5d3_xplained.dts > > The DTS name is somewhat irritating in that installers and other > environments (my own tester included) rely on file names. There's been > a bunch of discussion about this in the past, but at the end of the > day, you end up irritating people when you rename the resulting dtbs. > > As long as we don't keep adding random names beyond those, we should be OK.
I okay with all you said Olof. I'll try to keep this file naming sensible even with all the legacy that we already have.
Bye, -- Nicolas Ferre
| |