[PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: rename gw7905 to gw75xx

[Tim Harvey]

On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 11:34 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski at linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 24/05/2024 20:40, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 04:04:50PM -0700, Tim Harvey wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 7:47 AM Conor Dooley <conor at kernel.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 09:02:46AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>>> On 22/05/2024 23:50, Tim Harvey wrote:
> >>>>> The GW7905 was renamed to GW7500 before production release.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Tim Harvey <tharvey at gateworks.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml | 4 ++--
> >>>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml
> >>>>> index 0027201e19f8..d8bc295079e3 100644
> >>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml
> >>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml
> >>>>> @@ -920,8 +920,8 @@ properties:
> >>>>>                - fsl,imx8mm-ddr4-evk       # i.MX8MM DDR4 EVK Board
> >>>>>                - fsl,imx8mm-evk            # i.MX8MM EVK Board
> >>>>>                - fsl,imx8mm-evkb           # i.MX8MM EVKB Board
> >>>>> +              - gateworks,imx8mm-gw75xx-0x # i.MX8MM Gateworks Board
> >>>>
> >>>> That's not even equivalent. You 7500 != 75xx.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>                - gateworks,imx8mm-gw7904
> >>>>> -              - gateworks,imx8mm-gw7905-0x # i.MX8MM Gateworks Board
> >>>>
> >>>> Compatibles do not change. It's just a string. Fixed string.
> >>>
> >>> I think there's justification here for removing it, per the commit
> >>> message, the rename happened before the device was available to
> >>> customers.
> >>> Additionally, I think we can give people that upstream things before they're
> >>> publicly available a bit of slack, otherwise we're just discouraging
> >>> people from upstreaming early.
> >>
> >> Hi Conor,
> >>
> >> Thanks for understanding - that's exactly what happened. I'm in the
> >> habit of submitting patches early and often and it's no fun when
> >> something like a silly product name gets changed and breaks all the
> >> hard work.
> >>
> >> The board model number is stored in an EEPROM at manufacturing time
> >> and that EEPROM model is used to build a dt name. So instead of GW7905
> >> which would be a one-off custom design it was decided to change the
> >> product to a GW75xx. The difference between GW7500 and GW75xx is
> >> because we subload components on boards between GW7500/GW7501/GW7502
> >> etc but the dt is the same.
> >>
> >> If there is resistance to a patch that renames it then I guess I'll
> >> have to submit a patch that removes the obsolete board, then adds back
> >> the same board under a different name. Shall I do that?
> >
> > I think this patch is fine - other than the inconsistency that Krzysztof
> > pointed out between the "renamed to gw7500" and the "gw75xx" in the new
> > compatible.
>
> I am not a fan of renaming compatibles because of marketing change,
> because compatible does not have to reflect the marketing name, but
> there was already precedent from Qualcomm which I did not nak, so fine
> here as well. Double wildcard 75xx is however a bit worrying.
>

Hi Krzysztof,

Thanks for understanding. The double-wildcard is again a marketing
tool. All GW75** use the same device-tree by design. The boot firmware
that chooses the device-tree understands this and for a GW7521 for
example would look for gw7521 first, gw752x next, gw75xx last.

Best Regards,

Tim