[PATCH 09/20] dt-bindings: pinctrl: ralink: {mt7620,mt7621}: rename to mediatek

[Arınç ÜNAL]

On 9.03.2023 14:33, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 11:34 AM Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal at arinc9.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 9.03.2023 12:52, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 09/03/2023 08:53, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
>>>> On 9.03.2023 00:19, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
>>>>> On 9.03.2023 00:05, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 03:28:38AM +0300, arinc9.unal at gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal at arinc9.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This platform from Ralink was acquired by MediaTek in 2011. Then,
>>>>>>> MediaTek
>>>>>>> introduced these SoCs which utilise this platform. Rename the schemas to
>>>>>>> mediatek to address the incorrect naming.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I said we don't do renames due to acquistions, you said that wasn't the
>>>>>> reason, but then that's your reasoning here.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not a marketing/acquistion rename as the name of these SoCs were
>>>>> wrong from the get go. The information on the first sentence is to give
>>>>> the idea of why these SoCs were wrongfully named as the base platform
>>>>> that these new MediaTek SoCs share code with was called Ralink.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To give you another example, *new* i.MX things are still called
>>>>>> 'fsl,imx...' and it has been how many years since merging with NXP?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok this is a point I see now. Though, I fail to see how this is called
>>>>> renaming when there's only new SoCs (from NXP in this case) to be added.
>>>>
>>>> If I understand correctly, i.MX is a family from Freescale so the name
>>>
>>> It's the same "family" as your platform, because as you said:
>>> "introduced these SoCs which utilise this platform"
>>>
>>>> was kept the same on new SoC releases from NXP. I believe it's different
>>>> in this case here. There's no family name. The closest thing on the name
>>>> of the SoC model is, it's RT for Ralink, MT for MediaTek.
>>>
>>> It's not about the name. NXP took Freescale platform and since many
>>> years makes entirely new products, currently far, far away from original
>>> platform.
>>>
>>> That's the same case you have here - Mediatek took existing platform and
>>> started making new products with it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On top of that, mediatek strings already exist for MT SoCs already, at
>>>> least for MT7621.
>>>>
>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net-next.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mips/ralink.yaml?id=dd3cb467ebb5659d6552999d6f16a616653f9933#n83
>>>
>>> NXP also has compatibles with nxp, thus still not that good reason.
>>
>> Ok, makes sense. Am I free to call the SoCs MediaTek, change the schema
>> name from ralink,mtXXXX-pinctrl.yaml to mediatek,mtXXXX-pinctrl.yaml
>> whilst keeping the compatible string ralink?
>>
>> I plan to do some cleanup on ralink.yaml as well. From what I
>> understand, I should change the mediatek,mt7621-soc compatible string to
>> ralink,mt7621-soc?
> 
> You have to take care of these SoC strings since they are used in the
> very beginning of the ralink startup platforms for any single ralink
> SoC. See for example [0] and [1] (but they are in all soc init code).
> I think it is better to maintain the ralink.yaml file as it is.

I'd really rather address this inconsistency everywhere possible. The 
code you pointed out looks different than what I did on the pinctrl 
driver but, surely it's possible on the code to introduce ralink and 
keep the mediatek string for the sake of old DTs, no?

Arınç