RE: [PATCH v3 1/6] dt-binding: ARM: samsung: Add Samsung Exynos8855

Hi Ivaylo,
Thanks for your review. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ivaylo Ivanov <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2026 4:11 AM
> To: Alim Akhtar <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] dt-binding: ARM: samsung: Add Samsung
> Exynos8855
> 
> On 6/27/26 20:12, Alim Akhtar wrote:
> > Add Samsung Exynos8855 smdk board to documentation
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alim Akhtar <[email protected]>
> > ---
> >  .../devicetree/bindings/arm/samsung/samsung-boards.yaml     | 6 ++++++
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git
> > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/samsung/samsung-boards.yaml
> > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/samsung/samsung-boards.yaml
> > index 753b3ba1b607..273464400477 100644
> > ---
> > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/samsung/samsung-boards.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/samsung/samsung-
> boards.yam
> > +++ l
> > @@ -235,6 +235,12 @@ properties:
> >                - winlink,e850-96                 # WinLink E850-96
> >            - const: samsung,exynos850
> >
> > +      - description: Exynos8855 based boards
> > +        items:
> > +          - enum:
> > +              - samsung,exynos8855-smdk         # Samsung SMDK
> > +          - const: samsung,exynos8855
> 
> Is there any particular reason for using "exynos8855" rather than the
> commercial name - exynos1580? We've already established using the latter
> naming scheme as a convention (e.g. exynos3830 -> exynos850, exynos9830 ->
> exynos990) rather than the development model numbers, so I don't think
> breaking that will help anyone with the already painful model number confusion.
> 
The reason for using Exynos8855 is that it comes from the chip-id register, which is RO register.
And in my opinion it has to be chip-id, maintaining two names is confusing (as you also mentioned).
Yes, there were couple of deviation but let's come back to the "original" convention (which is to use chip-id).

@ Krzysztof, Peter 
Any input on this? 

> Best regards,
> Ivaylo
> 
> > +
> >        - description: Exynos8895 based boards
> >          items:
> >            - enum: