Hi All, [Bickering trimmed. Guys, please be nice. You're two of the main players in this community and your bickering is making it look unfriendly.]
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Maxime Ripard <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 02:29:23PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 12:05:54PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: >> > On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 06:01:25PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote: >> > > It was a consistent scheme, which allwinner followed for many many >> > > years. >> > >> > No, it was not. If it was to be a purely time-driven naming scheme, >> > A10s should have been sun6i. >> >> See below. It was consistent. >> >> > > A10s is A13. >> > >> > [citation needed] >> >> Why else does allwinner call them both sun5i? Why else does A13 have a >> fully working hdmi block sitting there? >> >> Citation: my uboot cfbconsole code where i successfully use HPD >> detection on A13. This fails nicely, as no hpd pin is exported outside >> of the chip, and it is never raised to 5V. >> >> But please go ask our Allwinner contacts or Tom Cubie or something. > > The fact that the internals of the SoC are alike or even the same > doesn't matter much. What really matters is really what is exposed to > the user, ie what is routed to the externals pins. And from that point > of view, they're just "similar", but the fact that the HDMI, EMAC, > GPS, etc. are not at least usable in the A13 makes it a different SoC. > >> > > 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. >> > >> > Yeah, right. So it's chronological, but we have no way to tell, except >> > by fully trusting you. The argument of (which?) authority is not >> > really something that usually convince me. >> >> It is pretty logical. A31 was named sun6i, A20 was named sun7i. A31 was >> a major redesign. A20 was throwing 2 A7s and a second fragment shader, >> and some minor fixes onto A10. The latter was either a stopgap, or a >> deliberate market decision, it at least took a lot less time to >> complete. Hence them both arriving at the same time. >> >> Again, the above is the best logical explanation for events. > > Ok. > >> > > 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. >> > >> > It is. You can find some reference to A31 being sun6i, and A20 being >> > sun7i. Can you find any reference to A33 being sun10i? >> >> You did find A31 and A20 as sun6i and sun7i when Allwinner was still on >> a relatively sane naming scheme. You cannot find these references >> anymore on anything allwinner produces today. >> >> So either you go allwinner, or you don't. > > Probably, but we still have to find a consistent naming. Sticking with > sun6i and sun7i is somewhat consistent with both ourselves and > Allwinner. sun10i is just made out of nowhere, as a hack because you > don't really like the new naming scheme. > >> > > 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. >> > >> > I guess it could fit into both sun8i and sun9i. But A83 isn't really >> > the topic here, is it? >> >> But it is. Or it very much will be, in about 6 months time. > > Ok, let's consider it then. I guess we have four options: > - It's made part of sun8i by Allwinner > - It's made part of sun9i by Allwinner > - It's made sun10i by Allwinner > - It's made something completely different and crazy. > > By introducing sun11i like you suggest, you're making it inconsistent > with all of these options. > > While my proposal doesn't conflict with any of them. Why not just use the name(s) they were given at release? And if there are conflicts, either use the "sunXiwYpZ" format or append it with the "A" number or both? - So the A10 stays as "sun4i" - If they release some A19 part which is a souped up A10 with fancy stuff and want to call it "sun4i" or "sun4iw3p9" we use the latter. - If they re-release the A10 with minor changes, change it's chip ID and call it the A11 - but insist on keeping the code name as "sun4i" only, we call it "sun4i_A11". No conflicts, no retroactive code changes, minimal confusion. Yes, it's going to end up with some weird double barrelled names and the "transition" chipsets, i.e. the ones they're selling now, will have one name here and one name on Allwinner's site, but if we document it well (In the code, in Documentation/arm/sunxi_naming.txt (or similar), in equivalent places in u-boot and on the Wiki) we should be able to weather this storm. We just need to make sure that Joe Random User can find this and properly identify their chipset when they want to add support for their device. Oh, and from a purely "marketing" perspective, this isn't "naming confusion", it's a "new naming scheme from 2014". I.e. before 2014 they called them this, after 2014 they called them this. We can definitely note that it will / is causing confusion, but we shouldn't call it that. And when they inevitably change the naming in 20XX, we just document the change, and keep going. Thanks, -- Julian Calaby Email: [email protected] Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/ -- 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.
