On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 04:33:48PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 03:55:19PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote: > > > > For those who do not know what Maxime is on about, here is the short > > explanation: > > http://linux-sunxi.org/Allwinner_SoC_Family#Naming_confusion > > > > I do not buy the modern allwinner sunXi naming. > > > > Retro-actively renaming half their line-up sun4i and the other half > > sun8i, I have seen that before (cfr unichrome.sf.net). A few months in, > > and that Vendor did another little pirouette. And again, and again. > > > > Where Allwinner drew the naming line now is quite arbitrary: the type of > > the ARM core in there. The one component which is mostly generic and > > reasonably universal. Sun4i suddenly became all ARM Cortex A8, sun8i > > became all ARM Cortex A7. Now that they stuck a few A15 in A80, they > > named that sun9i. > > Actually, I do find it consistent.
For now. > > If the sunXiwYpZ scheme actually had something to do with the majority > > of SoC specific component lineage, i would've totally bought into it: > > that would put A20 close to A10, and would put A31 somewhere else > > altogether, with A23 and A33 close together... > > Yeah, right, as if the sun4i/sun5i was in any way better.... It was a consistent scheme, which allwinner followed for many many years. > > So no, this is purely a marketing driven decision, which will have > > changed again in 6 months time. Where will Allwinners freshly announced > > A83 land? Will they stick to their own naming scheme? What will happen > > when Allwinner produces an ARMv8 chip, will they count beyond 9, or will > > they rename everything sun7i/sun8i? > > > > Sun[4567]i was chronological, and initially sun[89]i were too. So I say > > we just keep on counting for ourselves. > > A10s was released after A13, A31 and A20 at the same time. Not very > chronological if you ask me... A10s is A13. The A20 design was a stopgap, and the design started after A31 was started. So it was chronological, just not chronological with the release dates. > But I guess what it all boils down is this: do we want to keep > allwinner's naming and be consistent with it or not. We've been so > far, it's something I'd like to be kept. Especially since it's *very* > easy to support (basically, keep the sun6i and sun7i, introduce sun8i > for A23, A33, and whatever comes next, which should be the best if > following your "connection" argument), and have sun9i for the A80. But this is not consistent with Allwinner naming. Being consistent with allwinner naming would mean renaming most of the upstream code. And then doing it again a few months from now. Sun8i for A23 and A33 will only work until we see allwinner give out the codename for A83, and whether the early marketing noise for it matches reality and it really is a octal A7 with powervr. Something tells me that this is going to be an A80, with less dram channels, less rogue shaders, and with A7s instead of A15. > Introducing this sun10i out of nowhere, without any other > code/documentation referring to it, and with the only argument that > "some guy thought it was a better idea" is not that great. Especially > when the time where they will have a new design and come up with > sun10i chips. It will be a very short pain. > > Another option is to completely switch to AW<chip id>, which would mimic > > what i did for unichrome. > > > > 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. This is going to be a big pain. But ok, so what do you want to call A33, and do we rename A23 away from sun8i, by adding suffixes there as well? The sun8i<suffix> "solution" is only a band-aid though. Perhaps A83 will fit in this scheme, perhaps not. Something tells me that armv8 is going to seriously kill this, and will require a more permanent solution to this problem. Luc Verhaegen. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "linux-sunxi" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
