From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH #upstream-fixes] ata: rename AMD SB900 into Hudson-2 Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:40:24 -0400 Message-ID: <4AD5C6B8.3010703@pobox.com> References: <1255403640.3625.6.camel@zm-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:41089 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753797AbZJNMle (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:41:34 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1255403640.3625.6.camel@zm-desktop> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: shane.huang@amd.com Cc: tj@kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On 10/12/2009 11:14 PM, Shane Huang wrote: > This patch renames the code name SB900 into Hudson-2 > > Signed-off-by: Shane Huang > --- > drivers/ata/ahci.c | 2 +- > drivers/ata/pata_atiixp.c | 2 +- > drivers/ide/atiixp.c | 2 +- > drivers/pci/quirks.c | 6 +++--- > include/linux/pci_ids.h | 6 ++---- > 5 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) The patch certainly seems obviously correct, but normally we deal with boring chip names, because marketing names change all the time. If we applied "marketing patches" there would be a ton of patches sent our way. If the SB900 simply does not / will not exist, then I'm fine applying this. Otherwise, I would prefer the chip name over the marketing name... Jeff