Hi Kevin, From: Kevin Hilman [mailto:[email protected]] > "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?
I was meaning "along with". > Or would your team > be OK with only the da830 naming (which would be my preference)? I believe that engineers in TI Catalog DSP group really want to see the "omapl137" name included as well. The main place where including "omapl137" is considered important is at "top levels" (like in menuconfig, for example), I think. > 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. I think it's OK if function names are just "da830", at this level. Does that help? Kim/Zhengting/David--do you agree? > > 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. The main place where it's felt that both names should be visible is the latter, i.e., external packaging. We didn't want to cause two separate packages (DA830 & OMAP-L137) to be created, but yet we want both to have some top-level visibility. -Lester _______________________________________________ Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list [email protected] http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
