"Longley, Lester" <[email protected]> writes: [ ... ]
> From: Sergei Shtylyov [mailto:[email protected]] [ ... ] >> So, how should we reference to OMAP-L1x in kernel (in order to avoid the >> confusion with real OMAP)? > > It's the strong preference from my group, Performance Media, that > "da830" be *included* in the name. Lester, thanks for sharing the views of your group. Do you mean included along with the omapl1x name? Or would your team be OK with only the da830 naming (which would be my preference)? For in-kernel code, I think it would be *really* clumsy to have both. In other words, I would much rather have #define DA830_MY_VAR void da830_my_func(void); OR #define OMAPL1X_MY_VAR void omapl1x_my_func(void); instead of: #define DA830_OMAPL1X_MY_VAR void da830_omapl1x_my_func(void); Which I think would be more confusing than informative. > Maybe one could consider that a side benefit of such naming is > easier distinction versus "real OMAP" (or maybe "original OMAP"). Yes, I think that using the d830 naming only would avoid this confusion. > Moreover, many users of the chip will utilize the DSP-side audio > code available for DA830, and so helping them readily identify the > appropriate kernel is important to them & to us. This need can > hopefully be addressed by inclusion of "da830_" prefix in the kernel > name. Will these users have much visibility into the in-kernel naming? Or are you primarily concerned with the naming of how the kernel as it is packaged and visible to non kernel-developers. Kevin _______________________________________________ Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list [email protected] http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
