[v3.2] dts: vendor-prefixes: deprecate facebook and add meta #64274
Conversation
Although there are no in-tree users, we will deprecate the `facebook` vendor prefix and add `meta`. Signed-off-by: Christopher Friedt <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit 02f4aeb)
cfriedt
requested review from
henrikbrixandersen,
luchnikov,
ycsin,
XenuIsWatching,
jgl-meta and
a team
zephyrbot
added
the
area: Devicetree Binding
|
hey @cfriedt, 3.2 is unsupported, don't think we should backport that far |
|
@fabiobaltieri - I think we might have had some teams using that branch internally.. but ... trying very much to upstream / reduce forking internally and this is (maybe surprisingly) the easiest way to at least set a good example to ensure things are consistent. I'm fine with this is dropped, but @henrikbrixandersen reminded me that I had broken backports to update. CC @DaWei8823 |
|
I see your point but unless it's really an major obstacle for you I'd rather close this and not push anything on unsupported releases. This in particular is not a big deal, but then we'd end up merging on old release branches forever. I think at that point you should really keep your fork if you are based on a way out of date release. |
|
Not entirely sure why this even needs to be backported (to any branch)? I mean, we usually do not backport deprecations - and we support out-of-tree lists of vendor prefixes. |
Well, it's because facebook legally changed it's name a while ago, we have internal forks of Zephyr, and several teams will need a coherent migration strategy.
Yea. I'm not actually sure why facebook was added here in the first place without having an in-tree driver of some kind, but it's there, and we should try not to break out of tree users. I think we have a few drivers that could be submitted upstream before LTS.
As I mentioned already, doing it in-tree is (maybe surprisingly) the easiest way for me to ensure that it is consistent. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't see the value in the backport to 3.2 as it's not supported, and I don't see Zephyr looking to make a 3.2.x release any time soon. That said, if it makes a supporter of Zephyr's life easier to have unreleased changes in an upstream branch that won't impact anyone else.. I don't see the downside here.
|
I agree with @dkalowsk |
Backport of #61351 for
v3.2-branch.Fixes #61337
Fixes #61380