Hi!
some vendor will come up with a way to break a naming scheme.
That why I choose NCT6776D and not NCT6776 as name.
NCT6776D and NCT6776F have a common datasheet and the only difference I
could spot was the package. But the manufacturer might release a chip
with a different suffix and
Felix Held wrote:
the suffix is part of the name.
No it isn't. The suffix is part of the part number. The part number
is not the same thing as the chip name.
I think I keep NCT6776D as name and change the chip description to
CHIP_NAME(NUVOTON NCT6776D/F Super I/O)
Seems to be the best
Hi Peter!
The code you are writing is communicating with a piece of
hardware that is expected to behave a certain way. Which package
the hardware comes in is utterly irrelevant for the behavior of the
hardware in this case, so please do not garble the name with that noise.
Then I should rename
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Felix Held felix-coreb...@felixheld.de
wrote:
Hi Peter!
The code you are writing is communicating with a piece of
hardware that is expected to behave a certain way. Which package
the hardware comes in is utterly irrelevant for the behavior of the
hardware
Personally, I'd just use a little 'x' in place of D or F in this case.
What if a chip has X as suffix? At least that was my thought not to
choose that. And that also might it can confuse people, since there is
no NCT6776X.
I think I'll just remove the suffix from this bikeshed and add a
Dear coreboot folks,
what is the proposed naming for devices, which are identical but come in
different package variants and therefore have different model numbers?
Case at hand are the Nuvoton NCT6776D and Nuvoton NCT6776F [1]. Quoting
Felix Held [2]:
Superiotool reports the NCT6776D
Paul Menzel wrote:
what is the proposed naming for devices
..
The D/F in the part number is not the version code or IC revision.
Felix already answers your question. Do not include things in the
part number which are not part of the part number.
//Peter
--
coreboot mailing list:
And never forget, no matter how many times we try to get this right, some
vendor will come up with a way to break a naming scheme. Happens every time.
ron
--
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
ron minnich wrote:
some vendor will come up with a way to break a naming scheme.
The point is to not put things into the name (which is a plain string)
that aren't part of the vendor's name.
The only scheme that makes sense is to name things what they are.
This requires handling each and every
Peter, I completely agree.
ron
--
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
10 matches
Mail list logo
