ARM: sunxi: Change device tree naming scheme for sunxi

There is several different SoCs sharing the sun5i codename: A10s, A12 and A13. Since there is enough differences to not consider those the same SoCs, change a bit the naming scheme to reflect this.

Moreover, some boards like the olinuxino come in A10s and A13 variants, which also share the same SoC codename.

So change the naming scheme to reflect both the codename and the market name of the SoCs used in the dtsi and in the board files

---
 arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile                         |    4 ++--
 ...n4i-cubieboard.dts => sun4i-a10-cubieboard.dts} |    4 ++--
 arch/arm/boot/dts/{sun4i.dtsi => sun4i-a10.dtsi}   |    0
 ...sun5i-olinuxino.dts => sun5i-a13-olinuxino.dts} |    4 ++--
 arch/arm/boot/dts/{sun5i.dtsi => sun5i-a13.dtsi}   |    0
 5 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
 rename arch/arm/boot/dts/{sun4i-cubieboard.dts => sun4i-a10-cubieboard.dts} (87%)
 rename arch/arm/boot/dts/{sun4i.dtsi => sun4i-a10.dtsi} (100%)
 rename arch/arm/boot/dts/{sun5i-olinuxino.dts => sun5i-a13-olinuxino.dts} (86%)
 rename arch/arm/boot/dts/{sun5i.dtsi => sun5i-a13.dtsi} (100%)

index 4dd567b..021d480 100644
@@ -84,8 +84,8 @@ dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SPEAR3XX)+= spear300-evb.dtb \
 	spear310-evb.dtb \
 	spear320-evb.dtb
 dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SPEAR6XX)+= spear600-evb.dtb
-dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun4i-cubieboard.dtb \
-	sun5i-olinuxino.dtb
+dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun4i-a10-cubieboard.dtb \
+	sun5i-a13-olinuxino.dtb
 dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_TEGRA) += tegra20-harmony.dtb \
 	tegra20-medcom-wide.dtb \
 	tegra20-paz00.dtb \

similarity index 87%
rename from arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-cubieboard.dts
rename to arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10-cubieboard.dts
index f4ca126..5cab825 100644
@@ -11,11 +11,11 @@
  */
 
 /dts-v1/;
-/include/ "sun4i.dtsi"
+/include/ "sun4i-a10.dtsi"
 
 / {
 	model = "Cubietech Cubieboard";
-	compatible = "cubietech,cubieboard", "allwinner,sun4i";
+	compatible = "cubietech,a10-cubieboard", "allwinner,sun4i-a10";
 
 	aliases {
 		serial0 = &uart0;

similarity index 100%
rename from arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i.dtsi
rename to arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10.dtsi

similarity index 86%
rename from arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-olinuxino.dts
rename to arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-a13-olinuxino.dts
index d6ff889..498a091 100644
@@ -12,11 +12,11 @@
  */
 
 /dts-v1/;
-/include/ "sun5i.dtsi"
+/include/ "sun5i-a13.dtsi"
 
 / {
 	model = "Olimex A13-Olinuxino";
-	compatible = "olimex,a13-olinuxino", "allwinner,sun5i";
+	compatible = "olimex,a13-olinuxino", "allwinner,sun5i-a13";
 
 	chosen {
 		bootargs = "earlyprintk console=ttyS0,115200";

similarity index 100%
rename from arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i.dtsi
rename to arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-a13.dtsi

1.7.9.5

Side note:
I just read about the A20 and A31, is there any information and/or source code available for those already, or are they again kept hidden by Allwinner?

Arnd

Hi Arnd,

Le 13/12/2012 13:00, Arnd Bergmann a ?crit :

Will you take it directly, or do you want a pull request?

There's been a tablet announced with an A31 running Android (the Onda V972), so I guess we can expect a source drop sometime soon, but for the A20, I don't know. It looks like Allwinner even removed all references to that SoC on their website, so...

Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com

Hi,

We can take it directly, but I'm not picking up patches until after the final 4 branches have been sent up and merged.

-Olof

currently they don't even sell A20 samples, and it was mostly removed from their website (to not compete with the A31 I suppose). for the A31 Tsvetan (olimex.com) was told not even the short datasheet (pins and features) is written yet, and no devkits are available. All A31-based products currently designed (PCBs) and integrated (android) within Allwinner walls.

Chances are very high that the SDKs for these are similar to sun5i ones, i.e. with all allwinner code provided as .o/.ko only... and just enough .h files to be able to compile drivers.

<rant>ARM should *force* all their licensees to respect the GPL. They are profiting for this immoral negligence and that puts ARM itself in the same bucket.</rant>

cheers,
Alejandro Mery

Only the copyright holders or agents acting on their behalf have the legal power to do that.

Also, it's not in ARMs interest to become a GPL enforcement agency for Linux kernel - their motivation here is to sell more ARM CPUs to that their revenue from their licenses continues to increase, and going after people like this would be counter-productive to that goal.

However, there are organisations setup specifically to deal directly with infringements of open source software licenses on behalf of their copyright holders, and a number of Linux kernel copyright holders have "signed up" with them.

Applied, replacing the previous version I claimed to have applied. ;)

-Olof