| Message ID | 20230518152244.2178-2-jszhang@kernel.org |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | riscv: add Bouffalolab bl808 support | expand |
Hi Jisheng, Thanks for updating this series! On 5/18/23 10:22, Jisheng Zhang wrote: > In the following commits, we will support bl808 SoC which is from > Bouffalo Lab Technology (Nanjing) Co., Ltd. > > Add bouffalolab vendor prefix binding. > > Link: https://en.bouffalolab.com/ > Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@kernel.org> > Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> > Acked-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml > index 82d39ab0231b..3566346f2f9e 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml > @@ -200,6 +200,8 @@ patternProperties: > description: BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. > "^bosch,.*": > description: Bosch Sensortec GmbH > + "^bouffalolab,.*": > + description: Bouffalo Lab Technology (Nanjing) Co., Ltd. Have you thought about using the "bflb" abbreviation as the vendor prefix, like you use throughout the driver code? This would save quite some space in the DTB, and seems to be the most common variant seen in the vendor SDK: bouffalo_sdk$ git grep -i bflb | wc -l 14364 bouffalo_sdk$ git grep -i bouffalo | wc -l 1042 bouffalo_sdk$ git grep -i bouffalolab | wc -l 179 So that is what we were using for bringing up Linux and U-Boot over at https://github.com/openbouffalo. On the other hand, "bouffalolab" is certainly accurate as well, so I understand if you prefer it. And we will of course adapt to whatever gets merged, since our goal is upstreaming. The vendor code drop[1] provided only one example, "bflb-uart,uart0", which is not very helpful. Maybe you have received further information from them? What do you think? Regards, Samuel [1]: https://github.com/bouffalolab/bl808_linux/blob/main/linux-5.10.4-808/drivers/tty/serial/bflb_uart.c#L700
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 09:53:12PM -0500, Samuel Holland wrote: > Hi Jisheng, > > Thanks for updating this series! > > On 5/18/23 10:22, Jisheng Zhang wrote: > > In the following commits, we will support bl808 SoC which is from > > Bouffalo Lab Technology (Nanjing) Co., Ltd. > > > > Add bouffalolab vendor prefix binding. > > > > Link: https://en.bouffalolab.com/ > > Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@kernel.org> > > Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> > > Acked-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> > > --- > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml > > index 82d39ab0231b..3566346f2f9e 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml > > @@ -200,6 +200,8 @@ patternProperties: > > description: BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. > > "^bosch,.*": > > description: Bosch Sensortec GmbH > > + "^bouffalolab,.*": > > + description: Bouffalo Lab Technology (Nanjing) Co., Ltd. > > Have you thought about using the "bflb" abbreviation as the vendor I did think about bflb vs bouffalolab. Here is what I thought: I came across "marvell" vs "mrvl" sevral years ago, I got an impression "marvell" vendor prefix is preferred if I read the discussions correctly. As for Bouffalolab vendor prefix, I have no preference, maybe DT maintainers can provide inputs here. Rob, Conor, Krzysztof, what's your opinion? Thanks > prefix, like you use throughout the driver code? This would save quite > some space in the DTB, and seems to be the most common variant seen in > the vendor SDK: > > bouffalo_sdk$ git grep -i bflb | wc -l > 14364 > bouffalo_sdk$ git grep -i bouffalo | wc -l > 1042 > bouffalo_sdk$ git grep -i bouffalolab | wc -l > 179 > > So that is what we were using for bringing up Linux and U-Boot over at > https://github.com/openbouffalo. > > On the other hand, "bouffalolab" is certainly accurate as well, so I > understand if you prefer it. And we will of course adapt to whatever > gets merged, since our goal is upstreaming. > > The vendor code drop[1] provided only one example, "bflb-uart,uart0", > which is not very helpful. Maybe you have received further information > from them? > > What do you think? > > Regards, > Samuel > > [1]: > https://github.com/bouffalolab/bl808_linux/blob/main/linux-5.10.4-808/drivers/tty/serial/bflb_uart.c#L700 >
On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 05:02:23PM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote: > On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 09:53:12PM -0500, Samuel Holland wrote: > > Hi Jisheng, > > > > Thanks for updating this series! > > > > On 5/18/23 10:22, Jisheng Zhang wrote: > > > In the following commits, we will support bl808 SoC which is from > > > Bouffalo Lab Technology (Nanjing) Co., Ltd. > > > > > > Add bouffalolab vendor prefix binding. > > > > > > Link: https://en.bouffalolab.com/ > > > Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@kernel.org> > > > Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> > > > Acked-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> > > > --- > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml | 2 ++ > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml > > > index 82d39ab0231b..3566346f2f9e 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml > > > @@ -200,6 +200,8 @@ patternProperties: > > > description: BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. > > > "^bosch,.*": > > > description: Bosch Sensortec GmbH > > > + "^bouffalolab,.*": > > > + description: Bouffalo Lab Technology (Nanjing) Co., Ltd. > > > > Have you thought about using the "bflb" abbreviation as the vendor > > I did think about bflb vs bouffalolab. Here is what I thought: I came > across "marvell" vs "mrvl" sevral years ago, I got an impression > "marvell" vendor prefix is preferred if I read the discussions > correctly. > > As for Bouffalolab vendor prefix, I have no preference, maybe DT > maintainers can provide inputs here. > Rob, Conor, Krzysztof, what's your opinion? I had a look through the blame for vendor-prefixes.yaml since I had no clue how easy it would be to find the marvell discussion - the commit for gateworks' deprecated entry (done by Krzysztof says "Favor the longer one (more descriptive)" & I think the same point is valid here. I would have no idea what "bflb" was if I came across it in isolation! Cheers, Conor.
On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 05:02:23PM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote: > On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 09:53:12PM -0500, Samuel Holland wrote: > > Hi Jisheng, > > > > Thanks for updating this series! > > > > On 5/18/23 10:22, Jisheng Zhang wrote: > > > In the following commits, we will support bl808 SoC which is from > > > Bouffalo Lab Technology (Nanjing) Co., Ltd. > > > > > > Add bouffalolab vendor prefix binding. > > > > > > Link: https://en.bouffalolab.com/ > > > Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@kernel.org> > > > Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> > > > Acked-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> > > > --- > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml | 2 ++ > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml > > > index 82d39ab0231b..3566346f2f9e 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml > > > @@ -200,6 +200,8 @@ patternProperties: > > > description: BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. > > > "^bosch,.*": > > > description: Bosch Sensortec GmbH > > > + "^bouffalolab,.*": > > > + description: Bouffalo Lab Technology (Nanjing) Co., Ltd. > > > > Have you thought about using the "bflb" abbreviation as the vendor > > I did think about bflb vs bouffalolab. Here is what I thought: I came > across "marvell" vs "mrvl" sevral years ago, I got an impression > "marvell" vendor prefix is preferred if I read the discussions > correctly. > > As for Bouffalolab vendor prefix, I have no preference, maybe DT > maintainers can provide inputs here. > Rob, Conor, Krzysztof, what's your opinion? The general preference is to match the vendor's domain name (minus the .com, etc.). Originally, the preference was stock ticker symbol, but we've pretty much moved away from that. So that's 'bouffalolab'. Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> Rob
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml index 82d39ab0231b..3566346f2f9e 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml @@ -200,6 +200,8 @@ patternProperties: description: BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. "^bosch,.*": description: Bosch Sensortec GmbH + "^bouffalolab,.*": + description: Bouffalo Lab Technology (Nanjing) Co., Ltd. "^boundary,.*": description: Boundary Devices Inc. "^brcm,.*":