Re: [PATCH 1/7] arm64: dts: qcom: Rename sa8775p SoC to "lemans"

[Rob Clark]

On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 5:52 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 24/07/2025 14:47, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> > On 7/23/25 10:29 AM, 'Krzysztof Kozlowski' via kernel wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 08:19:20PM +0530, Wasim Nazir wrote:
> >>> SA8775P, QCS9100 and QCS9075 are all variants of the same die,
> >>> collectively referred to as lemans. Most notably, the last of them
> >>> has the SAIL (Safety Island) fused off, but remains identical
> >>> otherwise.
> >>>
> >>> In an effort to streamline the codebase, rename the SoC DTSI, moving
> >>> away from less meaningful numerical model identifiers.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Wasim Nazir <wasim.nazir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/{sa8775p.dtsi => lemans.dtsi} | 0
> >>>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sa8775p-ride.dtsi             | 2 +-
> >>
> >> No, stop with this rename.
> >>
> >> There is no policy of renaming existing files.
> >
> > There's no policy against renaming existing files either.
>
> There is, because you break all the users. All the distros, bootloaders
> using this DTS, people's scripts.

I think that is a valid argument against renaming the toplevel .dts
(and therefore .dtb), but renaming .dtsi should be a harmless internal
detail to the kernel.  And less confusing, IMHO, than
qsc9100-myboard.dts #including sa8775p.dtsi.

So wouldn't the sensible way forward be to rename .dtsi but not .dts?

BR,
-R

> >
> >> It's ridicilous. Just
> >> because you introduced a new naming model for NEW SOC, does not mean you
> >> now going to rename all boards which you already upstreamed.
> >
> > This is a genuine improvement, trying to untangle the mess that you
> > expressed vast discontent about..
> >
> > There will be new boards based on this family of SoCs submitted either
> > way, so I really think it makes sense to solve it once and for all,
> > instead of bikeshedding over it again and again each time you get a new
> > dt-bindings change in your inbox.
> >
> > I understand you're unhappy about patch 6, but the others are
> > basically code janitoring.
>
> Renaming already accepted DTS is not improvement and not untangling
> anything. These names were discussed (for very long time) and agreed on.
> What is the point of spending DT maintainers time to discuss the sa8775p
> earlier when year later you come and start reversing things (like in
> patch 6).
>
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>