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

[Arınç ÜNAL]

On 10.03.2023 10:05, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 10:09 PM Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal at arinc9.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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?
> 
> In any case, the changes you might have in mind for this should be a
> different patch series.

Agreed.

Arınç