On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:36 PM, Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> wrote: > On Mon, 2016-02-08 at 13:12 +0900, Roger Shimizu wrote: >> [CC: debian-ker...@lists.debian.org and debian-arm@lists.debian.org] >> >> Dear Ben, Ian, Martin, >> >> I noticed orion5x and kirkwood are combined into new flavour called >> marvell in both kernel and flash-kernel git repo [0][1]. >> >> Maybe it's too late, > > It's not; that name isn't even used in experimental yet. > >> but I still hope the flavour can be named >> "mvebu", which will be consistent with upstream. >> AFAIK, all orion5x and kirkwood changes go into mvebu repo [2] first, >> and then merge into arm-soc repo [3], and finally reach linus repo >> [4]. > [...] > > I did consider using 'mvebu', but I thought that people might assume > that it was supposed to support all the ARMv5 SoCs included in that > family. That isn't the case and we're unlikely to add support for more > SoCs at this stage.
Thanks for your feedback! Now I know why not to choose "mvebu", but I still cannot understand why to choose "marvell", which seems more generic/wide scope. I checked - arch/arm/configs/mvebu_v5_defconfig and compared with - arch/arm/configs/multi_v5_defconfig I find mvebu_v5 actually is less than multi_v5 for a few flavour, such as iMX, U300. And in mvebu_v5, there's only orion5x and kirkwood related items. AFAIK mvebu_v7 belongs to armhf, so we can safely call upstream's mvebu_v5 as armel-mvebu. Cheers, -- Roger Shimizu, GMT +9 Tokyo PGP/GPG: 17B3ACB1