Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Add Xiaomi Mi 8 family compatibles

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 17/09/2026 12:25, David Heidelberg wrote:
> On 17/09/2026 12:21, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2026 at 04:32:24PM +0200, David Heidelberg wrote:
>>> +      - description: Xiaomi Mi 8 family
>>> +        items:
>>> +          - enum:
>>> +              - xiaomi,dipper
>>> +              - xiaomi,equuleus
>>> +              - xiaomi,ursa
>>> +          - const: xiaomi,dipper-common
>>
>> We do not make "common" compatibles.
>> git grep common -- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> 
> TBH I have mental issue with calling it xiaomi,dipper-dipper
> 
> All three devices are branded as own devices, just based on 99.9% same base.
> 
> I'm not aware of any internal name which group these devices.
> 
> I could call it like xiaomi,common, but there is the polaris and beryllium, 
> which aren't "that common" with these three.
> 
> Do you have idea what to do in this situation?

Just don't use "common" or "generic" or anything close to it, because it
confuses future contributors thinking "common" compatible is allowed.
It's not.

Except above, the actual names of compatibles are irrelevant, they just
need to uniquely identify the device. Personally, I would not use
nicknames at all for devices because they tell me nothing. Maybe they
tell to you because you read internal source code, but not to me.

And if you google for Xiaomi Dipper, you will find first forks of code,
so again not source information but derivative. Only fifth result is
gsmarena website, but weirdly it does not have even "dipper" text
mentioned. So basically using such names is counter productive to me,
confusing and bringing downstream - postmarketos or lineageos -
practices to upstream. Basically downstream forks create some codename
and you push it to the usptream. You can, but I don't find it useful.

I would use proper model names, e.g. "xiaomi,mi-8" for final
compatibles. Codename for family is fine, because simply there is no
product which we could identify as common base...


Best regards,
Krzysztof