Nico Huber has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/35622 )
Change subject: mainboard/supermicro/x11-lga1151-series: Rename to x11-lga1151-skykbl ......................................................................
Patch Set 6:
I like the current name. Everyone is calling the Coffee Lake socket LGA1151v2 (or r2) anyway.
> I am not 100% sure, but I guess Cannon Lake also uses this socket. Might be better to split this up as well or?
Cannon Lake doesn't have a socket at all.
Huh?
IIRC, only a single SKU exists and it's a ULT model.
option 1)We could use x11ss- as prefix (and ignore that maybe the two exceptions X11SAT and X11SAE get into this group some day); The full name would be x11ss-lga1151-series and x11sc-lga1151-series, then.
Please don't. No "you have to know Supermicro's encoding", please.
You don't need to know anything about Supermicro's encoding... when I have a board X11SS<whatever>, I would look in the tree if there is a folder X11SS<blah>... it's that simple ;-)
"that simple" didn't you just say that there *are* exceptions. Please don't make a mess of it.
option 2) keep x11s- as prefix. Then we have to separate v5/v6 (skl/kbl), v7/v8 (cnl/cfl) by another tag. Examples: x11s-v5v6- and x11s-v7v8- or x11s-sklkbl- and x11s-cnlcfl- Then we have 29 Boards with Socket 1151v1, and some with some FCBGA-*.
Sounds all much more confusing than the current name, to me.
However, if there are indeed BGA versions, then the chipset would be the next best thing to identify the line. So I throw `x11-sunrisepoint` into the ring.
That isn't sufficient, as there are many sp board that are absolutely NOT compatible with the two we have currently.
- With a variant setup, how can any board with the same chipset be incompatible?
- So you are saying all LGA1151(v1) are compatible but not all with SPT?
It seems to me that obviously the naming convention wasnt really well thought through.
How about revert the whole stuff and just go back to the normal convention? I know that it doubles the code, but it seems to me much easier than finding a convention, when there is no real logic in the naming of the x11 board.
Um, what? The current naming seems quite reasonable. Apart from one argument (lga1151 vs. lga1151v2), I only see lowest quality bike- shedding here.
Maybe we should back off a little and ask, what problem are your trying to fix? Are you about to add support for the X11SCH and need to pick a name? If not, there is nothing to do atm.