Re: [RFC PATCH v1] irqchip: add support for SMP irq router

[Mason <slash.tmp@free.fr>]

Jason Cooper wrote:

> Sebastian Frias wrote:
>
>> Mason wrote:
>>
>>> Sebastian Frias wrote:
>>>
>>>>  .../sigma,smp87xx-irqrouter.txt                    |  69 +++
>>>
>>> In the *actual* submission, we can't use a wildcard like smp87xx
>>> we'll have to use an actual part number.
>>
>> Are you sure?
>> That would hinder genericity.
>> Actually I wanted to call it "sigma,smp-irqrouter.txt" (or "sigma,smp,irqrouter.txt").
> 
> sigma,smp-irqrouter.txt should be fine.  The devicetree maintainers
> should yelp if they want something different.

Personally, I don't like "smp" because it's too easy to confuse that
for "symmetric multi-processor".

Come to think of it, I'm not sure the *name* of the file documenting
a binding is as important to DT maintainers as the compatible string.


>> To me there's no need to link the compatible string of a given HW
>> module with that of the chip name the module it is embedded into.  For
>> example, the generic USB3 driver is "generic-xhci".  While this module
>> is not generic to be embedded in chips from different manufacturers,
>> it is supposed to be generic within Sigma, and multiple Sigma chips
>> (with potentially different denominations) can use it.
>>
>>>
>>>>  drivers/irqchip/Makefile                           |   1 +
>>>>  drivers/irqchip/irq-tango_v2.c                     | 594 +++++++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>> Likewise, I don't like the "_v2" suffix, it's too generic.
>>> Actual submission should use something more specific.
>>
>> Well, the other driver is irq-tango.c that is generic as well.
>> I prefer versioning, as it is unrelated with the actual chip name.
> 
> Is there a name, similar to 'tango', for this version of the IP?
> Something that would spark recognition for someone looking for "the damn
> driver for this XYZ irqchip I have".  If not, irq-tango_v2.c is fine.

If we go with the v2 naming scheme, I vote for irq-tango-v2.c for
consistency with the GIC drivers.

Regards.