[Lenny400] Patches for linux-stable

H. Nikolaus Schaller hns at goldelico.com
Fri Sep 1 23:29:42 CEST 2017

> Am 01.09.2017 um 23:09 schrieb Paul Boddie <paul at boddie.org.uk>:
> On Friday 1. September 2017 22.41.32 H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
>> Hi Paul,
>> first feedback:
>> * looks good from coarse review :)
> Probably best viewed from a distance!


>> * was easy to apply to 4.13-rc5 and rebase to 4.13-rc7 or letux-base - no
>> conflicts
> I can pull the latest changesets and merge, I guess.

Or rebase - didn't make a difference.

In my experience only -rc1 has a tendency to show conflicts and rarely another -rc.

>> * I had to rename some things (config, dtb-name) from minipc to minibook to
>> make it compatible to how it is named in Letux (yes, I know there is
>> confusion about the naming...) shortly: minipc is too generic - and the
>> sales box calls it Minibook (not Minipc).
>> 	Well we could also call it "mipsbook_400" - should we?
> I had forgotten about the mipsbook_defconfig stuff. I can leave it up to you 
> since I don't have any strong opinion, although I'm sure you can expect lots 
> of combinations of MiniPC, Minibook and MIPSbook in the code and commit 
> messages. Maybe the latter is already a different thing, though. (Personally, 
> I prefer Minibook and that's what I call it colloquially.)

I have checked a little:

* mini pc is used very generically for any small pc like system
* minibook is mainly used by paper-people to describe a small book
* mipsbook refers to the old mailing list we had for this topic: http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mipsbook-devel
  Nobody seems to use the term (without space) for anything else

Ok, then let's call it "mipsbook_400".

The 400 would also be a reference to some other brands like Skytone Alpha 400
(the original), Razorbook 400 etc..

But we can't call it just "400.dts" :)

I will update my patches tomorrow to reflect this change if I find all references...

>> * can I add your signed-off: for making the git patch public?
> Yes, sure! We had this discussion two years ago. :-)


>> * I have started to add a keyboard matrix DT definition and added some
>> other peripherals
> I wonder if the matrix definition includes the actual key identifiers.

It contains matrix positions and key codes. Like an external USB or Bluetooth
keyboard. User-space is responsible to apply some key mapping table to ASCII/UTF-8.
For example some xmodmap.

> My other recent experiences have involved L4Re/Fiasco.OC where the device trees 
> can include all sorts of identifier collections (although limitations 
> prevented me from fully exploiting them).
> You'll have seen that the board file includes the arrays of key identifiers, 

Yes. But I wonder why we need an board file at all... ARM systems have eliminated
specific board files completely. Maybe MIPS DT-only boot is not as mature.

> but bringing it in from the device tree is going to be a lot cleaner. I guess 
> you have a lot more familiarity with this from GTA04 than I do, though.

Yes, it was quite simple to copy stuff from Pyra and GTA04 and modify.

Using and enforcing DT was the best decision Linux could do (around 3.13 kernel).
It makes defining a board so much easier, especially if it has not much really
different and new stuff where you have to define the bindings first.

I will update the patches tomorrow and then push so you can check(out) them.


More information about the Lenny400 mailing list