On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 09:53:43AM -0600, Longley, Lester wrote: > Hi Mark, > > From: Mark A. Greer [mailto:mgr...@mvista.com] > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:35:07AM -0800, Kevin Hilman wrote: > > > "Longley, Lester" <les...@ti.com> writes: > > > > > > [ ... ] > > > > > > > From: Sergei Shtylyov [mailto:sshtyl...@ru.mvista.com] > > > > > > [ ... ] > > > > > > >> So, how should we reference to OMAP-L1x in kernel (in order to > > > >> avoid the > > > >> confusion with real OMAP)? > > > > > > > > It's the strong preference from my group, Performance Media, that > > > > "da830" be *included* in the name. > > > > > > Lester, thanks for sharing the views of your group. > > > > > > Do you mean included along with the omapl1x name? Or would your team > > > be OK with only the da830 naming (which would be my preference)? > > > > > > For in-kernel code, I think it would be *really* clumsy to have both. > > > In other words, I would much rather have > > > > > > #define DA830_MY_VAR > > > void da830_my_func(void); > > > > > > OR > > > > > > #define OMAPL1X_MY_VAR > > > void omapl1x_my_func(void); > > > > > > instead of: > > > > > > #define DA830_OMAPL1X_MY_VAR > > > void da830_omapl1x_my_func(void); > > > > > > Which I think would be more confusing than informative. > > > > > > > Maybe one could consider that a side benefit of such naming is > > > > easier distinction versus "real OMAP" (or maybe "original OMAP"). > > > > > > Yes, I think that using the d830 naming only would avoid this > > > confusion. > > > > > > > Moreover, many users of the chip will utilize the DSP-side audio > > > > code available for DA830, and so helping them readily identify the > > > > appropriate kernel is important to them & to us. This need can > > > > hopefully be addressed by inclusion of "da830_" prefix in the kernel > > > > name. > > > > > > Will these users have much visibility into the in-kernel naming? Or > > > are you primarily concerned with the naming of how the kernel as it is > > > packaged and visible to non kernel-developers. > > > > To try to get closure, here is a proposal: > > > > File names/macros/config options will have da830 only but the menuconfig > > prompts will have "DA830/OMAP-L137" in them. The defconfig would be > > called da8xx_omapl137_defconfig. > > > > Everyone agree? > > Did you mean "da830_omapl137_defconfig", rather than > "da8xx_omapl137_defconfig"?
Oops, yes, that's what I meant. Sorry... Mark -- _______________________________________________ Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list Davinci-linux-open-source@linux.davincidsp.com http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
