From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: amit.kucheria@canonical.com (Amit Kucheria) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 09:38:43 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 08/25] imx/mx1: rename files defining a machine to mach-$mach.c In-Reply-To: <20100204084513.GB5380@pengutronix.de> References: <1262967452-24353-1-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> <1262967452-24353-2-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> <1262967452-24353-3-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> <1262967452-24353-4-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> <1262967452-24353-5-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> <1262967452-24353-6-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> <1262967452-24353-7-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> <1262967452-24353-8-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> <20100204012916.GC5274@k2> <20100204084513.GB5380@pengutronix.de> Message-ID: <20100205173843.GA4791@k2> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 10 Feb 04, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote: > Hello Amit, > > On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 05:29:16PM -0800, Amit Kucheria wrote: > > On 10 Jan 08, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote: > > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-K?nig > > > Cc: Sascha Hauer > > > Cc: Russell King > > > Cc: Paulius Zaleckas > > > Cc: Darius Augulis > > > Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab > > > --- > > > arch/arm/mach-mx1/Makefile | 4 ++-- > > > arch/arm/mach-mx1/{mx1ads.c => mach-mx1ads.c} | 2 +- > > > arch/arm/mach-mx1/{scb9328.c => mach-scb9328.c} | 2 +- > > > 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > rename arch/arm/mach-mx1/{mx1ads.c => mach-mx1ads.c} (98%) > > > rename arch/arm/mach-mx1/{scb9328.c => mach-scb9328.c} (98%) > > > > Rethinking about this (based on a similar request for my i.MX5 submission), I > > think renaming the boards to mach-* is a bad idea. > > > > Other SoCs (davinci, omap, msm, nomadik, etc.) use the board-* convention. We > > already use mach-* for the SoC directory names under arch/arm/. Naming the > > boards with mach-* will just cause more confusion. > Hmmm > > I still prefer mach-* as the corresponding Kconfig variables are named > MACH_* and there is no unified meaning of "board". For (I think) most > people here board describes the whole machine. For some (e.g. me) a > board might only be a PCB where you have to plug in a module that comes > with the SoC. > (http://www.digi.com/products/model.jsp?lid=EN&pgid=37&pfid=19&mtid=2070&amtid=2070&pm=Y) > > It think machine is precise for all of us. Perhaps. But I still think of arch/arm/mach-* as the SoC platform and arch/arm/mach-*/board-* as the various boards. arch/arm/mach-*/mach-* is confusing every way you look at it. I'd rather leave it alone than change the names to mach-*. (Shrug) Just my thoughts. > And note the selecting Kconfig symbol for arch/arm/mach-omap is > ARCH_OMAP. Ditto we have ARCH_DAVINCI, ARCH_MSM and ARCH_NOMADIK. > So we could rename these to arch-omap etc. But then this conflicts with > the toplevel arch directory!? I wouldn't got that far. > Best regards > Uwe Cheers, Amit -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Amit Kucheria, Kernel Engineer || amit.kucheria at canonical.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------