Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 10 Mar 2023 00:08:47 +0300 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 09/20] dt-bindings: pinctrl: ralink: {mt7620,mt7621}: rename to mediatek | From | Arınç ÜNAL <> |
| |
On 9.03.2023 14:33, Sergio Paracuellos wrote: > On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 11:34 AM Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@arinc9.com> wrote: >> >> 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? > > You have to take care of these SoC strings since they are used in the > very beginning of the ralink startup platforms for any single ralink > SoC. See for example [0] and [1] (but they are in all soc init code). > I think it is better to maintain the ralink.yaml file as it is.
I'd really rather address this inconsistency everywhere possible. The code you pointed out looks different than what I did on the pinctrl driver but, surely it's possible on the code to introduce ralink and keep the mediatek string for the sake of old DTs, no?
Arınç
| |