<html><head></head><body>Well, we could change it for ath79 and ramips right now, would be a simple rename without side effects.<br><br>We could use just SOC as proposed. I'd prefer to decide on the name right away and then would apply the patch directly without sending it to the list, to save us from rebasing...<br><br>Best<br><br>Adrian<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 15 December 2019 18:11:05 CET, Daniel Golle <daniel@makrotopia.org> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre class="k9mail">On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 05:53:42PM +0100, mail@adrianschmutzler.de wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;">Hi,<br><br>how would you call the SOC variable in image Makefile then? (the equivalent to ATH_SOC and MTK_SOC...)<br></blockquote><br>In a way those variables should be unified into something like 'SOC'...<br>For now, maybe 'LTQ_SOC' will do until we replace them all by 'SOC' and<br>that should be it...<br><br>Cheers<br><br>Daniel<br><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>Best<br><br>Adrian<br><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;">-----Original Message-----<br>From: openwrt-devel [mailto:openwrt-devel-bounces@lists.openwrt.org]<br>On Behalf Of Hauke Mehrtens<br>Sent: Sonntag, 15. Dezember 2019 14:49<br>To: Daniel Golle <daniel@makrotopia.org>; mail@adrianschmutzler.de<br>Cc: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>; openwrt-<br>devel@lists.openwrt.org<br>Subject: Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Lantiq DTS rename<br><br>On 12/15/19 2:27 PM, Daniel Golle wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"> Hi Adrian,<br><br> On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 02:10:14PM +0100, mail@adrianschmutzler.de<br></blockquote>wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"> Hi,<br><br> I consider doing a DTS rename for lantiq target similar to what it's like on<br></blockquote></blockquote>ath79 and what I did for ramips earlier that year.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> However, I wonder whether the "soc_vendor_model.dts" scheme is<br></blockquote></blockquote>useful there, or whether it wouldn't be better to just use<br>"vendor_model.dts" ...<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> Any thoughts on this or any NAK in general?<br></blockquote><br> soc_vendor_model should be appropriate here is well. why not?<br></blockquote><br>Yes please clean this up and use the soc_vendor_model model, I think this is<br>the common format in the Linux kernel.<br><br>Be aware that there is a pull request from Martin pending with some changes<br>to the existing files:<br><a href="https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/2216">https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/2216</a><br><br>Please also move the dts files into the lantiq subfolder at<br>arch/mips/boot/dts/lantiq/<br><br>Hauke<br></blockquote></blockquote><br><br></pre></blockquote></div></body></html>