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

[Chris Moore]

Hi,

Le 02/04/2013 19:24, Jason Cooper a écrit :
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 02:54:11PM +0200, Simon Guinot wrote:
>
...

>> 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.

I may be thick but I didn't realise that my old black CloudBox was 
already supported under the name netspace_mini_v2 :(
There is no reference to CloudBox anywhere in the kernel; only the 
SafeBox alias (of which I was also unaware) is given in Kconfig.

>> 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.

I wasn't aware that the original CloudBox was so confidential.
I even saw them for sale in my local FNAC (a hi-tech and media shop 
present in most large French shopping centres).

>> 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.

I agree that it would be confusing to change the netspace_mini_v2 name now.

In view of all the above, please disregard my objection.
Sorry for the noise :(

> As for the model number for the public board (#2), why can't we append
> "-90003xx"?  See [1], Specifications tab.
>
> [1] http://www.lacie.com/us/products/product.htm?id=10597

This seems like a good idea to me but I don't think Simon favoured 
adding a model number.
In any case Simon would know better than me whether this covers the 
models correctly.
What do you think, Simon?

Cheers,
Chris