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

[Sergio Paracuellos]

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.

Best regards,
    Sergio Paracuellos

[0]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.2.1/source/arch/mips/ralink/mt7621.c#L200
[1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.2.1/source/arch/mips/ralink/rt305x.c#L161

>
> Arınç