[PATCH] ARM: kirkwood: DT board setup for CloudBox

[Jason Cooper]

On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 02:54:11PM +0200, Simon Guinot wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 07:45:35AM -0400, Jason Cooper wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 06:17:10AM +0200, Chris Moore wrote:
> > > Le 01/04/2013 18:33, Simon Guinot a écrit :
> > ...
> > > >The new CloudBox is a very different product which has been first named
> > > >FamilyBox and then released under the CloudBox name.
> > 
> > The question really comes down to, are there *any* differences on the
> > _board_?
> > 
> > If there are hardware differences, we need two dts files and two
> > compatibility strings.  Preferably appending the baseline model number
> > to each.  If they unwisely chose the same model number, we should append
> > '-db' or '-dev-board' to the compatibility string of the first board.
> > 
> > Although, in this case, there is a netspace_mini_v2 already in the
> > kernel (kirkwood-ns2mini.dts).  Is this the development version you were
> > speaking of?
> 
> I think that I am not clear in my explanations :)

Nope, I'm just a little dense this week. ;-)

> There is two different LaCie boards. There is no relations between this
> boards except their final product name (which is quite silly).
> 
> From a LaCie point, there is no board but only product naming. Here are
> the different names used by LaCie for this two boards/products:
> 
> 1: netspace_mini_v2 -> SafeBox -> CloudBox
> 2: FamilyBox -> CloudBox
> 
> "1" is the oldest board.

Got it.

> Under Linux, with my patch we are using the following names:
> 
> 1: netspace_mini_v2
> 2: cloudbox
> 
> The problem raised by Chris is that the cloudbox name could be
> confusing because one could try a "cloudbox" dtb on the board "1". For
> my part I don't think it is an issue because "1" is rather confidential
> (and it is an euphemism). 

Agreed.

> It would be more confusing for users if the kernel name for "2" is not
> cloudbox but cloudbox_{color,number,...} or even familybox. Moreover
> netspace_mini_v2 is a correct name for "1".
> 
> IMHO, we could let things as they are. Additionally, I could either
> extend the Kconfig description and add a some comments in the dts files,
> in order to to prevent any misunderstanding...
> 
> Let me know if you agree or not.

Yes, that makes more sense.  Thanks for clearing it up.  Please add the
clarifying remarks to the dts.

As for the model number for the public board (#2), why can't we append
"-90003xx"?  See [1], Specifications tab.

thx,

Jason.

[1] http://www.lacie.com/us/products/product.htm?id=10597