[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56B47D0D.5030204@synopsys.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 10:44:29 +0000
From: Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>
CC: <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>, <arnd@...db.de>,
<linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org>,
<CARLOS.PALMINHA@...opsys.com>, <Alexey.Brodkin@...opsys.com>,
<robh+dt@...nel.org>, <pawel.moll@....com>, <mark.rutland@....com>,
<ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>, <galak@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/2] add new platform driver for PCI RC
Hi,
On 2/4/2016 11:43 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> What do you think?
>
> I don't think the "dw" part is relevant (none of the other
> DesignWare-based drivers includes it in the driver or file name).
>
> How do people typically refer to this board?
>
> I really like "synopsys" because it fits the pattern of being
> recognizable and pronounceable like "altera", "designware", "qcom",
> "keystone", "layerscape", "tegra", etc. But I can't tell whether it's
> too generic.
>
> "ipk" or "haps" would be fine with me. I think it's OK if it doesn't
> cover 100% of the possible systems.
I think we should follow the iproc example: pcie-iproc-platform.c
In this case we would have pcie-designware-platform.c
I think this would be the best name because the driver is a non soc specific
designware platform driver.
Arnd and Bjorn agree on this name?
>
> Bjorn
>
Joao
Powered by blists - more mailing lists