netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] stmmac: rename it to synopsys

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:09:47 +0000
From:   Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>
To:     Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
        Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:     <lars.persson@...s.com>, <niklass@...s.com>,
        <peppe.cavallaro@...com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] stmmac: rename it to synopsys

Hi Alex, good morning!

Às 10:11 AM de 1/12/2017, Alexandre Torgue escreveu:
>>
>> Lets not name it synopsys, for me it is totally fine, but naming it
>> stmicro/stmmac is not the right way because it seems like it is a driver just
>> for stmicro products, which is not, is for products that use Designware Ethernet
>> IPs.
>>
>> I am volunteering to do this work, let's discuss this.
> 
> For me it makes no sens to rename only folder (stmicro/stmmac by synopsys) and
> keep stmmac* inside a synopsys folder (that is very confusing). If you propose
> that you have to change all.
> 
> BUT doing that, we will lose all stmmac driver story and we don't want that.

Totally understand your point. Do you agree on this approach?
rename "stmicro" to "dwc" (designware controllers) and leave stmmac as it is
today. This small change is enough in my point of view and sole the problems you
refer. We would have net/ethernet/dwc/stmmac/.

I can also rename the dwmac4 files and functions to eqos, since soon we will
have a new eqos version.

dwmac4.h -> eqos.h
dwmac4_core.c -> eqos_core.c
dwmac4_descs.c -> eqos_descs.c
dwmac4_descs.h -> eqos_descs.h
dwmac4_dma.c -> eqos_dma.c
dwmac4_dma.h -> eqos_dma.h
dwmac4_lib.c -> eqos_lib.c

What do you think about this approach?

Thanks,
Joao

> 
> 
> 
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Joao
>>
>>