Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 9 Mar 2023 13:34:18 +0300 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 09/20] dt-bindings: pinctrl: ralink: {mt7620,mt7621}: rename to mediatek | From | Arınç ÜNAL <> |
| |
On 9.03.2023 12:52, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 09/03/2023 08:53, Arınç ÜNAL wrote: >> On 9.03.2023 00:19, Arınç ÜNAL wrote: >>> On 9.03.2023 00:05, Rob Herring wrote: >>>> On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 03:28:38AM +0300, arinc9.unal@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> From: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@arinc9.com> >>>>> >>>>> This platform from Ralink was acquired by MediaTek in 2011. Then, >>>>> MediaTek >>>>> introduced these SoCs which utilise this platform. Rename the schemas to >>>>> mediatek to address the incorrect naming. >>>> >>>> I said we don't do renames due to acquistions, you said that wasn't the >>>> reason, but then that's your reasoning here. >>> >>> It's not a marketing/acquistion rename as the name of these SoCs were >>> wrong from the get go. The information on the first sentence is to give >>> the idea of why these SoCs were wrongfully named as the base platform >>> that these new MediaTek SoCs share code with was called Ralink. >>> >>>> >>>> To give you another example, *new* i.MX things are still called >>>> 'fsl,imx...' and it has been how many years since merging with NXP? >>> >>> Ok this is a point I see now. Though, I fail to see how this is called >>> renaming when there's only new SoCs (from NXP in this case) to be added. >> >> If I understand correctly, i.MX is a family from Freescale so the name > > It's the same "family" as your platform, because as you said: > "introduced these SoCs which utilise this platform" > >> was kept the same on new SoC releases from NXP. I believe it's different >> in this case here. There's no family name. The closest thing on the name >> of the SoC model is, it's RT for Ralink, MT for MediaTek. > > It's not about the name. NXP took Freescale platform and since many > years makes entirely new products, currently far, far away from original > platform. > > That's the same case you have here - Mediatek took existing platform and > started making new products with it. > >> >> On top of that, mediatek strings already exist for MT SoCs already, at >> least for MT7621. >> >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net-next.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mips/ralink.yaml?id=dd3cb467ebb5659d6552999d6f16a616653f9933#n83 > > NXP also has compatibles with nxp, thus still not that good reason.
Ok, makes sense. Am I free to call the SoCs MediaTek, change the schema name from ralink,mtXXXX-pinctrl.yaml to mediatek,mtXXXX-pinctrl.yaml whilst keeping the compatible string ralink?
I plan to do some cleanup on ralink.yaml as well. From what I understand, I should change the mediatek,mt7621-soc compatible string to ralink,mt7621-soc?
Arınç
| |