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;
Message-ID: <c69d1daf-45c8-3ac5-a0b0-bb853593c54e@canonical.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Jan 2022 08:45:33 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.5.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] dt-bindings: vendor-prefixes: add LG Electronics
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@gmail.com>, Luca Weiss <luca@z3ntu.xyz>,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, 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>
References: <YfHlV13Zi4KV+bNT@pevik>
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com>
In-Reply-To: <YfHlV13Zi4KV+bNT@pevik>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 27/01/2022 01:20, Petr Vorel wrote:
> 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
> 

Probably renaming/unifying/correcting prefix in existing compatibles is
not worth the effort. This would make a mess and affect other DTS users.

Most of existing usages of "lg" prefix are panels which are coming from
another subsidiary of LG - LG Display. We all use there "lg" prefix, not
"lgd".
Plus mention before Bullhead mobile phone which is coming from LG
Electronics.

If we use generalized "lg" prefix for one subsidiary (LG Display), then
let's do the same for another subsidiary - LG Electronics. Plus entire
branding of LG Electronics products is LG: the website, the logo,
advertisements. Everywhere except legal footer.

I vote for using "lg" for both subsidiaries: LG Display and LG Electronics.


Best regards,
Krzysztof