Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-201361-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2024 22:48:30 +0200
From: Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org>
To: Alexey Charkov <alchark@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, heiko@sntech.de,
 linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
 robh+dt@kernel.org, krzk+dt@kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, quentin.schulz@cherry.de, wens@kernel.org,
 daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, didi.debian@cknow.org,
 krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] arm64: dts: rockchip: Make preparations for
 per-RK3588-variant OPPs
In-Reply-To: <82db817a908b761d8c3d73ea04714314@manjaro.org>
References: <673dcf47596e7bc8ba065034e339bb1bbf9cdcb0.1716948159.git.dsimic@manjaro.org>
 <CABjd4YxD41DEkBCZfkznLboEY9ZVOfTCLcj4S_kkcsVswbANyQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8f8623e29a479c4108141302e708dc3b@manjaro.org>
 <CABjd4Yy4RMg+6-4ygV0MSwJj5LReY-ymbctq4PPfVZ6L+c1tsw@mail.gmail.com>
 <166cc4e46f31644a50306625b2ab18a6@manjaro.org>
 <CABjd4YzDNQa45=KC_t0xnTDrH+g-oUrcpgP55oOj7JcAuu7uFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <82db817a908b761d8c3d73ea04714314@manjaro.org>
Message-ID: <75563ad3f6bf6b6c8b151ab0cc26b490@manjaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hello Alexey,

On 2024-05-30 21:31, Dragan Simic wrote:
> I'm sorry for my delayed response, had some "IRL stuff" to take care 
> of.

[...]

> On 2024-05-29 16:05, Alexey Charkov wrote:
>> The problem I have with -common is that there are several layers of
>> "common" even among just the three of these chip revisions, and a
>> clear inheritance hierarchy between them (i.e. RK3588j and RK3588 also
>> have a sizeable chunk of their IP blocks that is "common" between
>> these two variants, in addition to those shared among all three
>> variants)
> 
> Hmm, I see, that's a rather valid concern.  How about using "-base"
> for what I called "-common", and "-extra" for what I called "-fullfat",
> for the lack of a better term?  Using "-extra" takes inspiration from
> the way Linux distribution package repositories are commonly named, so
> it should be rather familiar to nearly everyone.
> 
> Also, "-base" and "-extra" are rather short, so their shortness would
> also make them stand out in the directory listing as something that 
> isn't
> just another board .dts or .dtsi file, which can only help.

[...]

Since there were no complaints, I'll move forward with sending a "real"
patch that uses "-base" and "-extra".