From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:26:29 +0100 (BST) Received: from [222.92.8.141] ([222.92.8.141]:56997 "EHLO lemote.com") by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S20022042AbZDMM0W (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:26:22 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lemote.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2644C3410F; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:23:01 +0800 (CST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at lemote.com Received: from lemote.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (www.lemote.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QmBO5kzm0S2C; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:22:52 +0800 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [222.92.8.142]) by lemote.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CCC53410C; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:22:52 +0800 (CST) Message-ID: <49E32F52.6060001@lemote.com> Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:25:54 +0800 From: yanhua User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: yanhua , Arnaud Patard , linux-mips@linux-mips.org, Ralf Baechle , =?UTF-8?B?5b2t5Lqu6ZSm?= , "zhangfx@lemote.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/14] lemote: Loongson2F based machines support References: <49DD7E88.7040305@lemote.com> <49DDB965.3060200@lemote.com> <20090413113640.GB6137@adriano.hkcable.com.hk> In-Reply-To: <20090413113640.GB6137@adriano.hkcable.com.hk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 22332 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: yanh@lemote.com Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips Zhang Le 写道: > On 17:01 Thu 09 Apr , yanhua wrote: > [snip] > >> This is just for historical reasons. Before, we have loongson2e machines >> named as fulong(from loogson2f, changeed to fuloong) merged into main >> kernel. >> > > I suggest we might as well change fulong to fuloong2e, while call 2f based > fuloong fuloong2f (or something similar, you get the idea). > > Because, fulong and fuloong are almost indistinguishable, neither on spelling > nor on pronunciation. > > Yes， We will rearrange the directory structure and make they share the common code. > Of course, we can deal with fulong(2e) later. However, I strongly suggest we get > fuloong2f right in the first place. > > Zhang, Le > > -- 晏华