Re: [PATCH 2/4] Documentation: devicetree: arm: Document Marvell IAP140
Hello, On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 14:16:13 +0100, Andreas Färber wrote: > I'm confused now. According to Marvell IR [0] they are NASDAQ-listed as > MRVL. My understanding is that in that case the official vendor prefix > becomes mrvl. Why not here? Not sure why, but as of today, we have a mix of "mrvl" and "marvell" in the tree, and "marvell" is the one official listed in vendor-prefixes.txt. > Any comments on the iap140 vs. pxa1908 naming? The Communication > Processors section has disappeared from marvell.com, so I couldn't > verify whether IAP140 was renamed from PXA1908 or whether both coexist > and we should add a second compatible string here? I don't have an opinion on this because I'm not familiar with this family of Marvell SoCs. However, the only thing I would recommend is that you send a patch to update Documentation/arm/Marvell/README to document this PXA1908/IAP140 thing. This is particularly important since this document mentions PXA1908 already. Thanks! Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com
Re: [PATCH 2/4] Documentation: devicetree: arm: Document Marvell IAP140
Hello, On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 14:16:13 +0100, Andreas Färber wrote: > I'm confused now. According to Marvell IR [0] they are NASDAQ-listed as > MRVL. My understanding is that in that case the official vendor prefix > becomes mrvl. Why not here? Not sure why, but as of today, we have a mix of "mrvl" and "marvell" in the tree, and "marvell" is the one official listed in vendor-prefixes.txt. > Any comments on the iap140 vs. pxa1908 naming? The Communication > Processors section has disappeared from marvell.com, so I couldn't > verify whether IAP140 was renamed from PXA1908 or whether both coexist > and we should add a second compatible string here? I don't have an opinion on this because I'm not familiar with this family of Marvell SoCs. However, the only thing I would recommend is that you send a patch to update Documentation/arm/Marvell/README to document this PXA1908/IAP140 thing. This is particularly important since this document mentions PXA1908 already. Thanks! Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com
Re: [PATCH 2/4] Documentation: devicetree: arm: Document Marvell IAP140
Hi, Am 20.02.2017 um 13:56 schrieb Thomas Petazzoni: > On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 04:19:58 +0100, Andreas Färber wrote: > >> + - compatible : must contain "mrvl,iap140" > > Even though there's indeed a good number of existing "mrvl," compatible > strings in the tree, the official vendor prefix according to > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.txt is "marvell". > Probably you should use that instead for new bindings? I'm confused now. According to Marvell IR [0] they are NASDAQ-listed as MRVL. My understanding is that in that case the official vendor prefix becomes mrvl. Why not here? Would be good to understand for other pending vendors such as Actions Semi. Any comments on the iap140 vs. pxa1908 naming? The Communication Processors section has disappeared from marvell.com, so I couldn't verify whether IAP140 was renamed from PXA1908 or whether both coexist and we should add a second compatible string here? Thanks, Andreas [0] http://investor.marvell.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=120802=irol-irhome -- SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
Re: [PATCH 2/4] Documentation: devicetree: arm: Document Marvell IAP140
Hi, Am 20.02.2017 um 13:56 schrieb Thomas Petazzoni: > On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 04:19:58 +0100, Andreas Färber wrote: > >> + - compatible : must contain "mrvl,iap140" > > Even though there's indeed a good number of existing "mrvl," compatible > strings in the tree, the official vendor prefix according to > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.txt is "marvell". > Probably you should use that instead for new bindings? I'm confused now. According to Marvell IR [0] they are NASDAQ-listed as MRVL. My understanding is that in that case the official vendor prefix becomes mrvl. Why not here? Would be good to understand for other pending vendors such as Actions Semi. Any comments on the iap140 vs. pxa1908 naming? The Communication Processors section has disappeared from marvell.com, so I couldn't verify whether IAP140 was renamed from PXA1908 or whether both coexist and we should add a second compatible string here? Thanks, Andreas [0] http://investor.marvell.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=120802=irol-irhome -- SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
Re: [PATCH 2/4] Documentation: devicetree: arm: Document Marvell IAP140
Hello, On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 04:19:58 +0100, Andreas Färber wrote: > + - compatible : must contain "mrvl,iap140" Even though there's indeed a good number of existing "mrvl," compatible strings in the tree, the official vendor prefix according to Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.txt is "marvell". Probably you should use that instead for new bindings? Thanks, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com
Re: [PATCH 2/4] Documentation: devicetree: arm: Document Marvell IAP140
Hello, On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 04:19:58 +0100, Andreas Färber wrote: > + - compatible : must contain "mrvl,iap140" Even though there's indeed a good number of existing "mrvl," compatible strings in the tree, the official vendor prefix according to Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.txt is "marvell". Probably you should use that instead for new bindings? Thanks, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com
