[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <AEBF64D7-5359-4E37-8263-B81209620192@codeaurora.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 13:46:08 -0500
From: Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>
To: Rohit Vaswani <rvaswani@...eaurora.org>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Cc: David Brown <davidb@...eaurora.org>,
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,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org list" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: msm: Move msm devicetrees under a Qualcomm dir
On Sep 16, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Rohit Vaswani wrote:
> 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
I think the two options are either:
qcom-msm*, qcom-apq*, etc
or
qcom/msm-*, qcom/apq*, etc
I'm guessing we'll end up without the dir and in the future have:
qcom/qcom-msm-*, qcom/qcom-apq-*
Olof???
- k
--
Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of 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