From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Saravana Kannan Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Introducing a generic AMP framework Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 14:09:13 -0800 Message-ID: <4EDE9289.8040903@codeaurora.org> References: <1319536106-25802-1-git-send-email-ohad@wizery.com> <4ECC67B9.4050306@codeaurora.org> <20111123161012.GA31423@sirena.org.uk> <4ECD5767.90307@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Ohad Ben-Cohen Cc: Mark Brown , Russell King , Arnd Bergmann , Tony Lindgren , Brian Swetland , Rusty Russell , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Grant Likely , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On 11/24/2011 12:43 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Saravana Kannan > wrote: >> remoteproc would probably be the best fit since it's already used in the >> code and people are used to discussing about it. > > Guys you realize that 'amp' isn't really being used in the code > itself; this discussion boils down to the text we have in the patches' > subject line and the top level Kconfig/folder entry :) > > But, sure, I'll just drop those 'amp' text instances, and we'll have > 'remoteproc' and 'rpmsg' as separate top-level frameworks again. > > Thanks, > Ohad. Yes, I did realize it's not used in the code. I just wanted to prevent what I considered a misuse of "AMP". Thanks for accommodating my request. -Saravana -- Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.