From: Michael Ellerman <michael-Gsx/Oe8HsFggBc27wqDAHg@public.gmane.org>
To: Mitch Bradley <wmb-D5eQfiDGL7eakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org>
Cc: linux-arch <linux-arch-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
linux-mips <linux-mips-6z/3iImG2C8G8FEW9MqTrA@public.gmane.org>,
microblaze-uclinux-rVRm/Wmeqae7NGdpmJTKYQ@public.gmane.org,
devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org,
LKML <linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
linuxppc-dev list
<linuxppc-dev-mnsaURCQ41sdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
sparclinux-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
Andrew Morton
<akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>,
Linus Torvalds
<torvalds-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_*() to dt_*()
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 16:50:06 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1290750606.9453.394.camel@concordia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4CEF3AB1.9060200-D5eQfiDGL7eakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2925 bytes --]
On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 18:42 -1000, Mitch Bradley wrote:
> On 11/25/2010 5:15 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 09:17 -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Michael Ellerman
> >> <michael-Gsx/Oe8HsFggBc27wqDAHg@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 01:03 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>>> There were some murmurings on IRC last week about renaming the of_*()
> >>>> routines.
> >>> ...
> >>>> The thinking is that on many platforms that use the of_() routines
> >>>> OpenFirmware is not involved at all, this is true even on many powerpc
> >>>> platforms. Also for folks who don't know the OpenFirmware connection
> >>>> it reads as "of", as in "a can of worms".
> >>> ...
> >>>> So I'm hoping people with either say "YES this is a great idea", or "NO
> >>>> this is stupid".
> >>>
> >>> I'm still hoping, but so far it seems most people have got better things
> >>> to do, and of those that do have an opinion the balance is slightly
> >>> positive.
> >>
> >> I assume you'll be also publishing the script that you use for
> >> generating the massive patch. I expect that there will be a few
> >> iterations of running the rename script to convert over all the
> >> stragglers.
> >
> > Yep sure, I'll just make it less crap first.
> >
> >> It should also be negotiated with Linus about when this
> >> patch should get applied. I do NOT want to cause massive merge pain
> >> during the merge window.
> >
> > Obviously.
> >
> >> Andrew/Linus: Before Michael proceeds too far with this rename, are
> >> you okay with a mass rename of the device tree functions from of_* to
> >> dt_*? Nobody likes the ambiguous 'of_' prefix ("of? of what?"), but
> >> to fix it means large cross-tree patches and potential merge
> >> conflicts.
> >
> > It'd also be good to hear from DaveM, sparc is the platform with the
> > strongest link to real OF AFAIK, so the of_() names make more sense
> > there.
>
>
> One Laptop Per Child ships real Open Firmware on its x86 Linux systems,
> of which approximately 2 million have been shipped or ordered. An ARM
> version, also with OFW, is in the works.
OK. I don't see any code under arch/x86 or arch/arm that uses of_()
routines though? Or is it under drivers or something?
> That said, I don't particularly like the abbreviation "of" either; I
> abbreviate Open Firmware as "OFW".
>
> I don't mind using "dt_" to apply to device tree things; I think it's
> clearer than "of_". Ideally, it would be nice to acknowledge the
> historical connection in some way, but confusing nomenclature probably
> is not the way to go about it.
Cool. I think there will still be a few things that have OF in the name,
at least for a while, and I'm sure the doco will still mention OF, so I
don't think the connection will be lost.
cheers
[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 192 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list
devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michael Ellerman <michael@ellerman.id.au>
To: Mitch Bradley <wmb@firmworks.com>
Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mips <linux-mips@linux-mips.org>,
microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au,
devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linuxppc-dev list <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_*() to dt_*()
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 16:50:06 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1290750606.9453.394.camel@concordia> (raw)
Message-ID: <20101126055006.tlFsKDJC8iBBsdRpd1BQ0JayQnSh-C164tEUAyg_RRE@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4CEF3AB1.9060200@firmworks.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2900 bytes --]
On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 18:42 -1000, Mitch Bradley wrote:
> On 11/25/2010 5:15 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 09:17 -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Michael Ellerman
> >> <michael@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 01:03 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>>> There were some murmurings on IRC last week about renaming the of_*()
> >>>> routines.
> >>> ...
> >>>> The thinking is that on many platforms that use the of_() routines
> >>>> OpenFirmware is not involved at all, this is true even on many powerpc
> >>>> platforms. Also for folks who don't know the OpenFirmware connection
> >>>> it reads as "of", as in "a can of worms".
> >>> ...
> >>>> So I'm hoping people with either say "YES this is a great idea", or "NO
> >>>> this is stupid".
> >>>
> >>> I'm still hoping, but so far it seems most people have got better things
> >>> to do, and of those that do have an opinion the balance is slightly
> >>> positive.
> >>
> >> I assume you'll be also publishing the script that you use for
> >> generating the massive patch. I expect that there will be a few
> >> iterations of running the rename script to convert over all the
> >> stragglers.
> >
> > Yep sure, I'll just make it less crap first.
> >
> >> It should also be negotiated with Linus about when this
> >> patch should get applied. I do NOT want to cause massive merge pain
> >> during the merge window.
> >
> > Obviously.
> >
> >> Andrew/Linus: Before Michael proceeds too far with this rename, are
> >> you okay with a mass rename of the device tree functions from of_* to
> >> dt_*? Nobody likes the ambiguous 'of_' prefix ("of? of what?"), but
> >> to fix it means large cross-tree patches and potential merge
> >> conflicts.
> >
> > It'd also be good to hear from DaveM, sparc is the platform with the
> > strongest link to real OF AFAIK, so the of_() names make more sense
> > there.
>
>
> One Laptop Per Child ships real Open Firmware on its x86 Linux systems,
> of which approximately 2 million have been shipped or ordered. An ARM
> version, also with OFW, is in the works.
OK. I don't see any code under arch/x86 or arch/arm that uses of_()
routines though? Or is it under drivers or something?
> That said, I don't particularly like the abbreviation "of" either; I
> abbreviate Open Firmware as "OFW".
>
> I don't mind using "dt_" to apply to device tree things; I think it's
> clearer than "of_". Ideally, it would be nice to acknowledge the
> historical connection in some way, but confusing nomenclature probably
> is not the way to go about it.
Cool. I think there will still be a few things that have OF in the name,
at least for a while, and I'm sure the doco will still mention OF, so I
don't think the connection will be lost.
cheers
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-11-26 5:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1290607413.12457.44.camel@concordia>
2010-11-25 13:34 ` RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_*() to dt_*() Michael Ellerman
2010-11-25 14:01 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2010-11-25 20:52 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2010-11-25 16:17 ` Grant Likely
2010-11-26 3:15 ` Michael Ellerman
2010-11-26 3:15 ` Michael Ellerman
2010-11-26 4:42 ` Mitch Bradley
2010-11-26 4:42 ` Mitch Bradley
[not found] ` <4CEF3AB1.9060200-D5eQfiDGL7eakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org>
2010-11-26 5:50 ` Michael Ellerman [this message]
2010-11-26 5:50 ` Michael Ellerman
2010-11-26 7:15 ` Grant Likely
2010-11-26 7:36 ` Mitch Bradley
2010-11-26 7:36 ` Mitch Bradley
2010-11-29 5:55 ` David Gibson
2010-11-29 5:55 ` David Gibson
2010-11-29 6:07 ` Grant Likely
2010-11-29 6:07 ` Grant Likely
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1290750606.9453.394.camel@concordia \
--to=michael-gsx/oe8hsfggbc27wqdahg@public.gmane.org \
--cc=akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org \
--cc=devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-arch-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-mips-6z/3iImG2C8G8FEW9MqTrA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev-mnsaURCQ41sdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org \
--cc=microblaze-uclinux-rVRm/Wmeqae7NGdpmJTKYQ@public.gmane.org \
--cc=sparclinux-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=torvalds-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org \
--cc=wmb-D5eQfiDGL7eakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox