On Fri, 2015-04-17 at 10:00 +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 08:34:42PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 21:17 +0200, Paul Kocialkowski wrote: > > > > > Well, the discussion has started on the other part of the thread. I > > > think we've agreed so far that it should be: [Vendor]_[Device], except > > > in a few cases where [Vendor]_ should be omitted: > > [...] > > > * When the device can clearly be identified without mentioning the > > > vendor, due to a certain renown in the community: I'm thinking of > > > Cubieboard, Cubietruck and the Olimex devices. This clearly doesn't > > > apply to devices like the AW1 produced by Ainol. > > > > Who is the arbiter of when this exception applies? It sounds unworkable > > to me, or at least it isn't going to lead to any kind of consistency. > > > > Perhaps the vendor should always be a formal part of the name, and > > always present in place which constitute an ABI (like DTB filenames) but > > can be omitted by default in other places (such as wiki page names), > > unless there is ambiguity (in which case it's included). > > I really don't know about that one, but I'd feel like having a DT > called sun4i-a10-olimex-a10-olinuxino.dtb would be kind of bad as > well.
True. I can think of a couple of exceptions which might resolve that (based around "device name includes vendor or is clearly linked to a specific vendor") but TBH I think if there are loads of exceptions then the benefits of the cleanups is watered down somewhat. Ian. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "linux-sunxi" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
