Re: [PATCH 09/20] dt-bindings: pinctrl: ralink: {mt7620,mt7621}: rename to mediatek

[Arınç ÜNAL]

On 9.03.2023 12:52, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 09/03/2023 08:53, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
> > On 9.03.2023 00:19, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
> > > On 9.03.2023 00:05, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 03:28:38AM +0300, arinc9.unal@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > > From: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > This platform from Ralink was acquired by MediaTek in 2011. Then,
> > > > > MediaTek
> > > > > introduced these SoCs which utilise this platform. Rename the schemas to
> > > > > mediatek to address the incorrect naming.
> > > >
> > > > I said we don't do renames due to acquistions, you said that wasn't the
> > > > reason, but then that's your reasoning here.
> > >
> > > It's not a marketing/acquistion rename as the name of these SoCs were
> > > wrong from the get go. The information on the first sentence is to give
> > > the idea of why these SoCs were wrongfully named as the base platform
> > > that these new MediaTek SoCs share code with was called Ralink.
> > >
> > > > To give you another example, *new* i.MX things are still called
> > > > 'fsl,imx...' and it has been how many years since merging with NXP?
> > >
> > > Ok this is a point I see now. Though, I fail to see how this is called
> > > renaming when there's only new SoCs (from NXP in this case) to be added.
> >
> > If I understand correctly, i.MX is a family from Freescale so the name
>
> It's the same "family" as your platform, because as you said:
> "introduced these SoCs which utilise this platform"
>
> > was kept the same on new SoC releases from NXP. I believe it's different
> > in this case here. There's no family name. The closest thing on the name
> > of the SoC model is, it's RT for Ralink, MT for MediaTek.
>
> It's not about the name. NXP took Freescale platform and since many
> years makes entirely new products, currently far, far away from original
> platform.
>
> That's the same case you have here - Mediatek took existing platform and
> started making new products with it.
>
> > On top of that, mediatek strings already exist for MT SoCs already, at
> > least for MT7621.
> >
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net-next.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mips/ralink.yaml?id=dd3cb467ebb5659d6552999d6f16a616653f9933#n83
>
> NXP also has compatibles with nxp, thus still not that good reason.

Ok, makes sense. Am I free to call the SoCs MediaTek, change the schema 
name from ralink,mtXXXX-pinctrl.yaml to mediatek,mtXXXX-pinctrl.yaml 
whilst keeping the compatible string ralink?

I plan to do some cleanup on ralink.yaml as well. From what I 
understand, I should change the mediatek,mt7621-soc compatible string to 
ralink,mt7621-soc?

Arınç