[PATCH] bcm53xx: initial support for the BCM5301/BCM470X SoC with ARM CPU

[Christian Daudt]

On 13-07-25 05:04 PM, Matt Porter wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 11:23:21PM +0100, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> 2013/7/25 Domenico Andreoli <cavokz at gmail.com>:
>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 08:05:28PM +0100, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>>> 2013/7/23 Matt Porter <matt.porter at linaro.org>:
>>>>> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 04:06:11AM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
>>>>> It's pretty easy to see that the "ti" vendor prefix has no relation at
>>>>> all to their TXN symbol so that blows that convention out of the water.
>>>>> Rather, the prefix is based on somebody's notion of how that vendor's
>>>>> part are normally referred to. In TI-land, it's TI AM335x or TI OMAP,
>>>>> never TXN OMAP. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> For Broadcom, every part is BCMxxxxx so "bcm" is appropriate.
>>>> It was appropriate before being the "wrong" vendor prefix was
>>>> allocated, now that "brcm" has been allocated we should stick to it
>>>> because otherwise we will break existing and on-going DT work.
>>> I still prefer bcm to brcm and I find enough evidence that bcm would be
>>> better in the long term.
>>>
>>> So if Broadcomers can agree on bcm, now it's still the cheapest time to
>>> fix in that direction, later will not be better.
>> If we are to fix it in stone, once and for all, let's go for the full name
>> which would avoid any kind of future confusion (this also seems to be the
>> tendency with new vendor prefixes these days). That way we could make
>> everyone happy with say: "broadcom,bcm2835". Would that work for everyone?
> I really like that.
>
> -Matt
>
broadcom works for me also.
  thanks,
    csd