Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sat, 28 Nov 2020 11:38:27 +0100
From:   Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech>
To:     Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@aosc.io>
Cc:     Samuel Holland <samuel@sholland.org>, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@siol.net>,
        linux-sunxi@googlegroups.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 3/3] arm64: allwinner: dts: a64: add DT
 for PineTab developer sample
Message-ID: <20201128103827.d6sfc2eumli2betx@gilmour>
References: <6175E674-E8BC-4199-8BE8-A983065C32D5@aosc.io>
 <20201116155508.364dg6ycklwylswe@gilmour.lan>
 <8FFC1A6C-9CA4-4F94-91C4-F111A7519979@aosc.io>
 <20201120155939.3ajmbny2pka2vsnf@gilmour>
 <A8E91BA0-22FD-47F4-A5B2-A80A38FE9A0E@aosc.io>
 <38ee5feb-e35d-801f-99a1-65e23618e73b@sholland.org>
 <20201123111512.y7lbwsipbkcpuleb@gilmour>
 <97E2037C-3C3C-4B0B-8462-39B9E38CB3BB@aosc.io>
 <20201123125332.2p5z3ew7svszvyfs@gilmour>
 <009A22D9-AF20-45C4-9674-13334B3EFFBA@aosc.io>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="rmpcrvovirbkiyir"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <009A22D9-AF20-45C4-9674-13334B3EFFBA@aosc.io>
Precedence: bulk


--rmpcrvovirbkiyir
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 09:10:38PM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
> >> >> > Okay. But I'm not satisfied with a non-public sample occupies
> >> >> > the pinetab name. Is rename it to pinetab-dev and add a
> >> >> > pinetab-retail okay?
> >> >>
> >> >> To me, naming the production version anything but "pinetab" isn't
> >> >> satisfying either.
> >> >
> >> >I understand where you're coming from, but the point I was making my
> >> >previous mail is precisely that it's not really possible.
> >> >
> >> >You want to name the early adopter version _the_ production
> >> >version. Let's assume the hardware changes again between the early
> >> >adopter and mass-production version. Which one will be _the_
> >> >production version? The early-adopter or the mass-produced one?
> >> >
> >> >There's really no good answer here, and both would suck in their
> >> >own way. The only way to deal with this is to simply avoid
> >> >defining one version as the one true board, and just loading the
> >> >proper DT in u-boot based on whatever clue we have of the hardware
> >> >revision.
> >
> > > Then will it be okay to rename current pinetab DT to
> > > pinetab-sample and then introduce new DTs all with suffixes?
> >
> > No. From my previous mail:
>=20
> It can be seen as dropping the PineTab DT and introduce new DTs with
> suffix.
>=20
> Do we have rule that we cannot drop boards?

Are you really arguing that removing a DT and then adding an identical
one under a different name is not renaming it?

--rmpcrvovirbkiyir
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEABYIAB0WIQRcEzekXsqa64kGDp7j7w1vZxhRxQUCX8IoowAKCRDj7w1vZxhR
xUVQAP9w4zKVWYrg14myVhyPLb+tvoKG3yXY0Mm7bfZ1HUpu4gD/Xku3FSK3YUYw
azv2bYxaZ+A0ewygD1XDiQwVsLHGsw0=
=em7W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--rmpcrvovirbkiyir--