From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtprelay2.synopsys.com ([198.182.60.111]:48677 "EHLO smtprelay.synopsys.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751203AbcBEKoi (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Feb 2016 05:44:38 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/2] add new platform driver for PCI RC To: Bjorn Helgaas , Joao Pinto References: <20160204181911.GA2143@localhost> <56B398E9.3080902@synopsys.com> <20160204234334.GH7031@localhost> CC: , , , , , , , , , , , From: Joao Pinto Message-ID: <56B47D0D.5030204@synopsys.com> Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 10:44:29 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160204234334.GH7031@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi, On 2/4/2016 11:43 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >> What do you think? > > I don't think the "dw" part is relevant (none of the other > DesignWare-based drivers includes it in the driver or file name). > > How do people typically refer to this board? > > I really like "synopsys" because it fits the pattern of being > recognizable and pronounceable like "altera", "designware", "qcom", > "keystone", "layerscape", "tegra", etc. But I can't tell whether it's > too generic. > > "ipk" or "haps" would be fine with me. I think it's OK if it doesn't > cover 100% of the possible systems. I think we should follow the iproc example: pcie-iproc-platform.c In this case we would have pcie-designware-platform.c I think this would be the best name because the driver is a non soc specific designware platform driver. Arnd and Bjorn agree on this name? > > Bjorn > Joao