On Thu Mar 12, 2026 at 8:21 PM CET, John Hubbard wrote: > On 3/12/26 12:16 PM, Danilo Krummrich wrote: >> On Thu Mar 12, 2026 at 7:45 PM CET, Cheng-Yang Chou wrote: > ... >>> Would that work for you? >> >> I think the module name should ideally match the directoy name, i.e. we have >> >> drivers/gpu/nova-core/ >> >> with the module name "nova-core" and >> >> drivers/gpu/drm/nova/ >> >> with the module name "nova-drm". > > When p > > When people do things like lsmod(1), they don't see the directory > path for the module source code, so if the name doesn't include > drm, then no one knows that "nova" implies "nova-drm". > > On the other hand, I was OK with just explaining to people that "nova" > is the upper layer kernel module, and that it's the one that does > DRM things. > > Which is why I'm merely "OK" with the name change, as opposed to > thinking that it's required.
Just to clarify, I think we should change the directory name and the module name to nova-drm; the above is what we'd get with the current patch. >> >> The reason why this is not .../nova-drm/ already is that I figured it would >> be a >> bit redundant given that "drm" is already part of the path. >> >> While I don't mind changing this, I wonder what this would mean for the >> Kconfig, CONFIG_DRM_NOVA_DRM? :) > > I also worry that we might not have enough DRM's in that > CONFIG item. haha :)
