[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 3/3] arm64: allwinner: dts: a64: add DT for PineTab developer sample

[Clément Péron]

Hi Maxime

On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 11:35, Maxime Ripard <maxime at cerno.tech> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 10:07:27PM +0100, Clément Péron wrote:
> > Hi Maxime, Icenowy,
> >
> > On Sat, 28 Nov 2020 at 12:59, Icenowy Zheng <icenowy at aosc.io> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 于 2020年11月28日 GMT+08:00 下午7:54:04, "Clément Péron" <peron.clem at gmail.com> 写到:
> > > >Hi Icenowy,
> > > >
> > > >On Sat, 28 Nov 2020 at 12:28, Icenowy Zheng <icenowy at aosc.io> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> 在 2020-11-28星期六的 11:38 +0100，Maxime Ripard写道：
> > > >> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 09:10:38PM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > Okay. But I'm not satisfied with a non-public sample
> > > >> > > > > > > > occupies
> > > >> > > > > > > > the pinetab name. Is rename it to pinetab-dev and add a
> > > >> > > > > > > > pinetab-retail okay?
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > To me, naming the production version anything but
> > > >"pinetab"
> > > >> > > > > > > isn't
> > > >> > > > > > > satisfying either.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > I understand where you're coming from, but the point I was
> > > >> > > > > > making my
> > > >> > > > > > previous mail is precisely that it's not really possible.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > You want to name the early adopter version _the_ production
> > > >> > > > > > version. Let's assume the hardware changes again between
> > > >the
> > > >> > > > > > early
> > > >> > > > > > adopter and mass-production version. Which one will be
> > > >_the_
> > > >> > > > > > production version? The early-adopter or the mass-produced
> > > >> > > > > > one?
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > There's really no good answer here, and both would suck in
> > > >> > > > > > their
> > > >> > > > > > own way. The only way to deal with this is to simply avoid
> > > >> > > > > > defining one version as the one true board, and just
> > > >loading
> > > >> > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > proper DT in u-boot based on whatever clue we have of the
> > > >> > > > > > hardware
> > > >> > > > > > revision.
> > > >> > > > > Then will it be okay to rename current pinetab DT to
> > > >> > > > > pinetab-sample and then introduce new DTs all with suffixes?
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > No. From my previous mail:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > It can be seen as dropping the PineTab DT and introduce new DTs
> > > >> > > with
> > > >> > > suffix.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Do we have rule that we cannot drop boards?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Are you really arguing that removing a DT and then adding an
> > > >> > identical
> > > >> > one under a different name is not renaming it?
> > > >>
> > > >> Then we can just keep confusing name?
> > > >
> > > >Sorry maybe I missed some information
> > > >But why don't you do like pinephone?
> > >
> > > They're the same board revision with different LCD panels.
> >
> > I just ask Pine64 about this and here is the reply :
> > "The PineTab LCD panel change was a last minutes before production
> > starts that vendor advise us switch over to new LCD controller due to
> > EoL concern".
> >
> > "Pine64 communication" is not so bad we just need to ask and they reply :)
> >
> > So the issue is not that the Product was not finalized but that one
> > component arrives in EoL.
> > This could also happens during a running production.
>
> Like you said, it can happen pretty much any time, for any reason, so
> the intent doesn't really matter here.

Agree, that was more to support Pin64 guys here.

As pinetab compatible can't be reused maybe somethings like this :
sun50i-a64-pinetab.dtsi
sun50i-a64-pinetab-1.0-early-adopter.dtb
sun50i-a64-pinetab-1.0.dtb or sun50i-a64-pinetab-retail.dtb. But
retail is like prod it's not explicit.

What do you think ?

Clement

>
> Maxime