2022-12-22 11:38:25

by Henning Schild

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] platform/x86: simatic-ipc: correct name of a model

What we called IPC427G should be renamed to BX-39A to be more in line
with the actual product name.

Signed-off-by: Henning Schild <[email protected]>
---
drivers/platform/x86/simatic-ipc.c | 2 +-
include/linux/platform_data/x86/simatic-ipc.h | 2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/simatic-ipc.c b/drivers/platform/x86/simatic-ipc.c
index ca76076fc706..2ab1f8da32b0 100644
--- a/drivers/platform/x86/simatic-ipc.c
+++ b/drivers/platform/x86/simatic-ipc.c
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ static struct {
{SIMATIC_IPC_IPC427D, SIMATIC_IPC_DEVICE_427E, SIMATIC_IPC_DEVICE_NONE},
{SIMATIC_IPC_IPC427E, SIMATIC_IPC_DEVICE_427E, SIMATIC_IPC_DEVICE_427E},
{SIMATIC_IPC_IPC477E, SIMATIC_IPC_DEVICE_NONE, SIMATIC_IPC_DEVICE_427E},
- {SIMATIC_IPC_IPC427G, SIMATIC_IPC_DEVICE_227G, SIMATIC_IPC_DEVICE_227G},
+ {SIMATIC_IPC_IPCBX_39A, SIMATIC_IPC_DEVICE_227G, SIMATIC_IPC_DEVICE_227G},
};

static int register_platform_devices(u32 station_id)
diff --git a/include/linux/platform_data/x86/simatic-ipc.h b/include/linux/platform_data/x86/simatic-ipc.h
index 632320ec8f08..a4a6cba412cb 100644
--- a/include/linux/platform_data/x86/simatic-ipc.h
+++ b/include/linux/platform_data/x86/simatic-ipc.h
@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ enum simatic_ipc_station_ids {
SIMATIC_IPC_IPC477E = 0x00000A02,
SIMATIC_IPC_IPC127E = 0x00000D01,
SIMATIC_IPC_IPC227G = 0x00000F01,
- SIMATIC_IPC_IPC427G = 0x00001001,
+ SIMATIC_IPC_IPCBX_39A = 0x00001001,
};

static inline u32 simatic_ipc_get_station_id(u8 *data, int max_len)
--
2.38.2


2022-12-22 12:57:57

by Andy Shevchenko

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] platform/x86: simatic-ipc: correct name of a model

On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 11:37:19AM +0100, Henning Schild wrote:
> What we called IPC427G should be renamed to BX-39A to be more in line
> with the actual product name.

Can you tell what does the current name mean?

Depending on that I would consider either your approach here or perhaps just
adding a comment in each of the places.

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko


2022-12-22 14:13:34

by Henning Schild

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] platform/x86: simatic-ipc: correct name of a model

Am Thu, 22 Dec 2022 14:44:18 +0200
schrieb Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>:

> On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 11:37:19AM +0100, Henning Schild wrote:
> > What we called IPC427G should be renamed to BX-39A to be more in
> > line with the actual product name.
>
> Can you tell what does the current name mean?

427G is an internal prototype name using the naming scheme that these
kind of machines used to use for several generations. For some reason
the naming scheme was changed and the public product name is BX-39A.

Please do not ask me why. But if you would happen to own such a device
you would know it as BX-39A _only_.

> Depending on that I would consider either your approach here or
> perhaps just adding a comment in each of the places.

Mentioning the name 427G, even as a comment, does not make much sense.
Since the box is for sale it is called BX-39A and was never called 427G.

I used the internal prototype name and only recently learned that never
became the final name. And this cleanup makes sure nobody gets
confused.

Henning

2022-12-27 20:22:43

by Andy Shevchenko

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] platform/x86: simatic-ipc: correct name of a model

On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 03:04:43PM +0100, Henning Schild wrote:
> Am Thu, 22 Dec 2022 14:44:18 +0200
> schrieb Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>:
> > On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 11:37:19AM +0100, Henning Schild wrote:
> > > What we called IPC427G should be renamed to BX-39A to be more in
> > > line with the actual product name.
> >
> > Can you tell what does the current name mean?
>
> 427G is an internal prototype name using the naming scheme that these
> kind of machines used to use for several generations. For some reason
> the naming scheme was changed and the public product name is BX-39A.
>
> Please do not ask me why. But if you would happen to own such a device
> you would know it as BX-39A _only_.
>
> > Depending on that I would consider either your approach here or
> > perhaps just adding a comment in each of the places.
>
> Mentioning the name 427G, even as a comment, does not make much sense.
> Since the box is for sale it is called BX-39A and was never called 427G.
>
> I used the internal prototype name and only recently learned that never
> became the final name. And this cleanup makes sure nobody gets
> confused.

Thanks for clarifications!

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko