[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52374DD1.9040209@codeaurora.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 11:28:33 -0700
From: Rohit Vaswani <rvaswani@...eaurora.org>
To: Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>
CC: David Brown <davidb@...eaurora.org>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org list" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: msm: Move msm devicetrees under a Qualcomm dir
On 9/12/2013 7:05 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
> On Sep 12, 2013, at 5:47 PM, David Brown wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 12:55:36PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>> On Sep 12, 2013, at 12:06 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>>>> My original request to please use a common prefix for your product
>>>> families stands. Please prefix with msm-*, or if you have to, qcom-*
>>>> instead, since you guys can't seem to make your mind up on standard
>>>> prefixes (msm, apq, etc).
>>> This is silly, I dont see the reason to go with
>>> qcom-apq<SOC>-<BOARD>.dts and than in the future drop qcom- when we
>>> mostly likely shift to a dir structure. As engineers we are all too
>>> aware of the lack of sanity in marketing names, but its what we have
>>> so we have to live with it.
>> At least what we'd decided a year or two ago was to call _everything_
>> with an msm* prefix. If marketing comes up with cute prefixes for
>> things, we would basically ignore them. So, under that, it should be
>> an msm8074-dragonboard. Admittedly, it might be a little confusing
>> with the name of the product having the apq in it, but as others have
>> pointed out, I think there is less confusing than not having a common
>> prefix on our MSM products.
>>
>> At least so far, there are no chips where apq vs msm actually
>> distinguishes anything. In fact, a simple "decoder ring" would point
>> out that the 'apq' usually corresponds with the second digit being a
>> zero. It doesn't help that we've added an 'mpq' prefix as well.
>>
>> I don't really see how to satisfy all of this other than qcom-apq*, or
>> just continue to use msm*.
I think going ahead with what David mentioned for msm* works if we can
be consistent or if we want to explicitly mention apq in the file name,
then
we can rename them to be qcom-msm* or qcom-apq* if people care about the
differences between them.
>
> I think msm has run out of steam, especially as more SoCs come out of Qualcomm that aren't just targeting phones & tablets.
>
> - k
>
Thanks,
Rohit Vaswani
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
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