lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 18/18] arm64: apple: Add initial Mac Mini 2020 (M1) devicetree
Date
On 08/02/2021 21.40, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 1:13 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 08:56:53PM +0900, Hector Martin 'marcan' wrote:
>>> On 08/02/2021 20.04, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> apple
>>>>
>>>> Don't make things different for this one platform (comparing to all
>>>> other platforms). Apple is not that special. :)
>>>
>>> AAPL is the old vendor prefix used in the PowerPC era. I'm happy to use
>>> `apple`, as long as we're OK with having two different prefixes for the same
>>> vendor, one for PPC and one for ARM64. I've seen opinions go both ways on
>>> this one :)
>>
>> Thanks for explanation. I propose to choose just "apple". Sticking to
>> old vendor name is not a requirement - we have few vendor prefixes which
>> were marked as deprecated because we switched to a better one.
>
> We've gone back and forth on this a few times already. My current
> preference would also be to go with "apple", not because it's somehow
> nicer or clearer but because it avoids the namespace conflict with
> what the Apple firmware uses:

Ack, I'll use 'apple' for v2.

Amusingly, Apple actually use 'apple,firestorm' and 'apple,icestorm' for
the CPUs in their devicetrees for these machines, so those will end up
identical :) (they don't use apple-related prefixes for any other
compatible strings at all, it's a mess). But we don't care about what
their ADTs (Apple DTs) do in Linux anyway, the bootloader abstracts all
that out and we'll be dealing with mantaining proper DTs ourselves.

>> Makes sense. In such case it's indeed your work. Since you introduce it,
>> the DTSes are usually licensed with (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT).
>
> Indeed, we do want other OSs to use our dts files, so the general
> preference is to have a permissive license, unless you have a strong
> reason yourself to require GPL-only.

Thanks for pointing this out; this was actually unintentional. I based
it off of an old dts I'd written ages ago and forgot to revisit the
license. I even have it marked GPL-2.0+ in the copy in our bootloader
repo, which is otherwise supposed to be MIT for original code...

--
Hector Martin (marcan@marcan.st)
Public Key: https://mrcn.st/pub

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-08 15:40    [W:0.189 / U:1.692 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site