nv41/ns50 boards: rebrand nitrokey boards as novacustom

[tlaurion]

Policital TLDR at #1662 (comment)

---

@macpijan said under #1662 (comment):

Just a note, that currently we only "support" NV41 model for heads. We are fine with having both under NovaCustom and providing coreboot base (we will continue to working on coreboot base for all of the models going forward). But we may not be able/willing to test the units with heads (such as ns50) not sold by @wessel-novacustom .

---

Awaiting:

• Proper guideline for strings used by novacustom/dts to handle ID used by DTS to recognize properly board IDs (NV41)
• What do we do for branding of NS50 @jans23/@nestire, maintainership of NS50 since not sold by novacustom and choice of Nitrokey in terms of paid maintainership if decision is not to maintain their branch
  • nv41 can be and should be rebranded to novacustom
  • not sure what to do with ns50 @daringer / @jans23? Same dasharo coreboot base so same release as nv41, probably same EC firmware maintained by dasharo/3mdeb and same heads base. Please discuss and comment here.
• Set precedence for next board inclusion/downtream boards upstreaming timeline (eg: Upstream MSI boards under Heads Dasharo/dasharo-issues#897 @macpijan )

[tlaurion]

Note:

On 3mdeb side, we are fine with pushing the changes before the next release first to upstream, and keeping just the logo and stuff in fork.

Last release of Nitrokey contains master + rebranding, which rebranding cleanly done under https://github.com/Nitrokey/heads/tree/nitropad-release-v2.5.0 where 7c0833f should be the only commit of a downstream release upon a heads upstream picked commit for release, containing rebranding.

The goal of present issue would be to arrive to that goal, where that commit for dasharo+heads should only be logo change, and where upstream nv41 should contain modules/coreboot proper commit pointing to coreboot commit fork and where dahsaro+heads in next release note be Heads master chosen commit and only divergence being equivalent of 7c0833f

@macpijan Do we have common understanding?