[LEDE-DEV] [PATCH v2] ramips: Add support for Sanlinking D240

[Piotr Dymacz]

Hi Mathias,

2017-02-03 12:13 GMT+01:00 Mathias Kresin <dev at kresin.me>:
> 2017-02-03 11:49 GMT+01:00 Kristian Evensen <kristian.evensen at gmail.com>:
>> Hi
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:02 AM, Piotr Dymacz <pepe2k at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Kristian,
>>>
>>> My two cents: the general convention for board name is to not include
>>> the manufacturer name (Sanlinking here).
>>> As you can see, (almost) all other boards follow this rule, so please
>>> use "d240" instead of "sanlinking-d240" (also for dts filename).
>>>
>>
>> I have no strong feelings for the manufacturer name, so I will remove
>> it if that is what it takes to get the patch accepted. However, I can
>> easily imagine a second manufacturer naming their device something
>> something D240, so perhaps shortening the name to for example SL- is a
>> good compromise between the two?
>
> I'm for using SL-D240. I share Kristians concerns about possible name
> collisions in targets supporting a lot of boards like ar71xx and
> ramips. Piotr, are fine with SL-D240?

I don't think we should modify model names given by manufacturers
unless it's really needed.
Of course, in case of name conflict, we should take care of it, but
only when it happens, not in advance and/or "just in case".

And, as Larry already pointed out, SL-* prefix is used by Skyline
products (I suppose SL-something is a real model name, and prefix
wasn't added by us) which might be misleading for users when they look
for ready image.

We already have at least one name conflict under ar71xx target (ap96)
and IMHO it wasn't solved properly. We have there board names "ap96"
and "alfa-ap96" and ready images also use these names (actually, image
for "Atheros AP96 Reference Board" is not generated as the kernel grew
too much...). Question here is why only ALFA board got the prefix and
Atheros one didn't?

As this is a general problem and I'm sure it's going to grow in time,
maybe we should start thinking about different approach for naming
boards in system, dts files and image filenames? Including there also
the manufacturer name would be one of possible options, but... I'm
pretty sure this problem is also kernel related (upstream dts
filenames convention).

Cheers,
Piotr