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:   Thu, 27 Jan 2022 01:20:39 +0100
From:   Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@gmail.com>
To:     Luca Weiss <luca@z3ntu.xyz>, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
Cc:     Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
        Oleksij Rempel <linux@rempel-privat.de>,
        Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Daniel Palmer <daniel@0x0f.com>,
        Max Merchel <Max.Merchel@tq-group.com>,
        Hao Fang <fanghao11@huawei.com>, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jean THOMAS <virgule@jeanthomas.me>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] dt-bindings: vendor-prefixes: add LG Electronics
Message-ID: <YfHlV13Zi4KV+bNT@pevik>
Reply-To: Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4f415ca1-6527-5667-01f2-9676f565d670@canonical.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi all,

> > Hi Krzysztof,

> > On Montag, 13. September 2021 10:49:43 CEST Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 12/09/2021 01:27, Luca Weiss wrote:
> >>> LG Electronics is a part of the LG Corporation and produces, amongst
> >>> other things, consumer electronics such as phones and smartwatches.

> >> Hi,

> >> Thanks for the patches.

> >> I think "lge" it's the same prefix as "lg". There is no sense in having
> >> multiple vendor prefixes just because company splits inside business
> >> units or subsidiaries. The same as with other conglomerates, e.g.
> >> Samsung - if we wanted to be specific, there will be 4-5 Samsung
> >> vendors... Not mentioning that company organisation is not always
> >> disclosed and can change.


> > I was mostly following qcom-msm8974-lge-nexus5-hammerhead as it's the other LG
> > device tree I am aware of so I've picked lge instead of lg. Also worth noting
> > that Google uses "LGE" in the Android device tree[1] or in the model name in
> > the LG G Watch R kernel sources ("LGE APQ 8026v2 LENOK rev-1.0")

> [1] Does not point to kernel tree. Downstream user could be a good
> argument to switch to lge, but then I would expect correcting other "lg"
> devices which are in fact made by LGE.


> > I don't have a strong opinion either way so I'm fine with either.

> > If we decide to go with "lg" do we want to change the Nexus 5 devicetree
> > (hammerhead) also, that one has the lge name in at least compatible and
> > filename (I don't know how much of a breaking change that would be considered
> > as).

> We would have to add a new one and mark the old compatible as deprecated.

Have we sorted this lg- vs. lge- ?

There are both:
arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-msm8974-lge-nexus5-hammerhead.dts
vs
arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-apq8026-lg-lenok.dts

+ patch flying for msm8992-lg-bullhead-rev-101.dtb
original:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20211201231832.188634-1-virgule@jeanthomas.me/
rebased by me:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20220113233358.17972-2-petr.vorel@gmail.com/

Kind regards,
Petr

> >> We already have lg for several components, also made by LG Electronics.
> >> What about these?

> >> There is only one device with "lge", added back in 2016 without adding
> >> vendor prefix. I would propose to fix that one, instead of keeping
> >> duplicated "lg".

> >> Best regards,
> >> Krzysztof

> > Regards
> > Luca

> > [1] https://android.googlesource.com/device/lge/hammerhead/


> Best regards,
> Krzysztof