On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 12:41:41PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: > On 9 September 2014 11:53, Maxime Ripard > <maxime.rip...@free-electrons.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 09:53:21PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: > >> >> A10 = AW1623 (sun4i) > >> >> A13/A10s = AW1625 (sun5i) > >> >> A31 = AW1633 (sun6i) > >> >> A20 = AW1651 (sun7i) > >> >> A23 = AW1650 (sun8i) > >> >> A80 = AW1635 (sun9i) > >> >> A33 = AW1667 (...) > >> >> > >> >> Now that's going to be real confusing. > >> > > >> > That could be an option, but like you said, it's pretty confusing to > >> > existing user of our code base. > >> > >> Ok, so how about printing all of the above? > > > > It's not just about printing. If we want to be consistent, we would > > have to stick with a single naming scheme. So that would mean also > > fixing up the source code of linux/uboot, the configuration files, the > > wiki, etc. > > > > If you want to spend time doing so, great. But I have no intention to > > follow you down this road. > > > >> The chip id is something burnt into the SoC and cannot be disputed. > >> From the chip id it can be guessed what is probably printed on the > >> package unless AW marketing got *really* creative. > > > > As far as I know, it's indeed on the package. But the package might > > not be visible, due to an heatsink for example. > > > > But it's what it sells as and what is in the marketing material of the > product that includes the SoC in cases when it is correct.
Not really, you'll never find any board/device sold as embedding an AW1635. -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
