On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 09:53:21PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: > >> 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. > > Ok, so how about printing all of the above?
It's not just about printing. If we want to be consistent, we would have to stick with a single naming scheme. So that would mean also fixing up the source code of linux/uboot, the configuration files, the wiki, etc. If you want to spend time doing so, great. But I have no intention to follow you down this road. > The chip id is something burnt into the SoC and cannot be disputed. > From the chip id it can be guessed what is probably printed on the > package unless AW marketing got *really* creative. As far as I know, it's indeed on the package. But the package might not be visible, due to an heatsink for example. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
