From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jason@lakedaemon.net (Jason Cooper) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 15:18:32 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] arm: Add basic support for new Marvell Armada SoC family In-Reply-To: References: <1337072084-21967-1-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <201205161528.27318.arnd@arndb.de> <201205161946.34179.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: <20120518191832.GC24238@titan.lakedaemon.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:20:36PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Wed, 16 May 2012, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Wednesday 16 May 2012, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > > > > > > AFAICT, those are shared between most of those socs, and I would not want > > > > to change the code in them to the new name. > > > > > > Why not? Module aliases can be used if that is a concern. > > > > > > > If we change the directory > > > > name to something completely different, it no longer matches the driver > > > > names. > > > > > > I wouldn't consider this as a major concern. For example, the ethernet > > > driver that all those SOCs use is not called "orion". > > > > It's not a big thing, I just feel that leaving the drivers alone makes > > it a bit easier to port patches between kernel versions. > > Sure. My point is that we can rename the SOC directory and leave > drivers alone if we wish to minimize churn. Drivers can be renamed at a > later time if that is seen as useful. > > > Another argument > > for orion is that it's nicer to read as a function name prefix than > > mrvl_ebu_* as you suggested. The main counterargument to keeping orion_ > > as I understand it is that it's actually only the name for the oldest > > members of this family, right? This is a good point, but we also have > > a lot of other cases in the kernel where code is named after the first > > thing that used it, e.g. arch/x86 was called arch/i386 for a long time > > and we still have tons of references to that. > > Indeed. "sa1100" is another example of that and I didn't want to rename > it to sa11x0 at the time. > > But in the sa1100 or i386 cases, the alternatives are close enough not > to cause too much confusion. > > In this case, we have wildly different names referring to the same chip > family, and "orion" is far from hinting that it also constitute the > support for Kirkwood, Dove or (some not all) Armadas, unless you are > familiar with some legacy Marvell products. This is why in this case I > think that a directory name change might be appropriate, _especially_ if > we're going to cause churn by moving things around already. > > I agree that mrvl_ebu_* is not pretty. This could be mv_ebu_* or > mvebu_*. Unless someone has another logical identifier to suggest which > would capture all that family of SOCs that came out of EBU in Marvell of > course. I prefer mvebu_* ... nice and concise. thx, Jason.