Re: [PATCH RESEND v4 1/3] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document OnePlus 8T

["Frieder Hannenheim" <mail@fhannenheim.net>]

On Sun Nov 8, 2026 at 10:03 PM CET, David Heidelberg wrote:
> On 08/11/2026 20:58, Frieder Hannenheim wrote:
>> On 08.11.26 21:52, David Heidelberg wrote:
>>> On 05/11/2026 20:20, Frieder Hannenheim wrote:
>>>> Add compatible for OnePlus 8T
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Frieder Hannenheim <git@fhannenheim.net>
>>>> ---
>>>>   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 1 +
>>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/ 
>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
>>>> index 50cc18a6ec5e..c21ef16e9ac8 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
>>>> @@ -1067,6 +1067,7 @@ properties:
>>>>         - items:
>>>>             - enum:
>>>> +              - oneplus,kebab
>>>
>>> How about oneplus,8t? We can use the non-so-much-confusing product name.
>>> Looking at existing device-trees it seems customary to use the code name 
>> of the product for phones. Examples include:
>> - xiaomi,lavender
>> - google,sargo
>> - oneplus,cheeseburger
>
> Yup, we had discussion with Krzysztof [1], that it could make more sense made 
> actual production name as a codename. My guess is Android codenames are used 
> before the product is released and the marketing name isn't known. Since we know 
> marketing names, which people use to identify the phones, we can use them to 
> make more clear which device is which.
>
> David
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/0fd3e0a5-33f7-4bc6-9146-dcaf035c3ef5@kernel.org/

I think in the linked discussion it made sense to use the marketing name since
there where multiple devices with the same codename. This is not the case here
so I wouldn't stray from the precedent.

Frieder