[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <10210279863.20070501201244@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 20:12:44 +0300
From: Paul Sokolovsky <pmiscml@...il.com>
To: Dmitry Krivoschekov <dmitry.krivoschekov@...il.com>
CC: ian <spyro@....com>, kernel-discuss@...dhelds.org,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [Kernel-discuss] Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/4] SoC base drivers
Hello Dmitry,
Tuesday, May 1, 2007, 7:38:44 PM, you wrote:
> ian wrote:
>> On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 17:53 +0400, Dmitry Krivoschekov wrote:
>>> Hi Paul,
>>
>>> I think your referring to the term "SoC (system-on-chip)" is confusing
>>> (at least for me). You rather consider companion chips than SoCs.
>>
>> A 'System' does not imply a CPU. A 'Computer System' would but the word
>> system itself doesnt even imply electronic.
>>
>>
> A "system" means something complete. Yes I agree it doesn't imply a CPU,
> but acronym SoC traditionally imply something different than you propose.
> Adding another meaning for SoC will confuse people because they will have
> to distinguish if it is a processor or just a slave IC.
I'm afraid we'd just have ontological argument unless tried to
bring in some references. But wikipedia does agree with you,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System-on-a-chip . So, well, down with
redefining SoC then. But "companion" is still too narrow and buzzwordy,
so let's explore Richard Purdie suggestion (in the other mail).
> Thanks,
> Dmitry
--
Best regards,
Paul mailto:pmiscml@...il.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists