From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (zproxy.gmail.com [64.233.162.194]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0A0C67B33 for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 01:19:00 +1000 (EST) Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 18so469478nzp for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 08:18:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Jason McMullan To: linuxppc-embedded Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-QPI0wvaSl0WXcCocywU3" Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 11:18:56 -0400 Message-Id: <1118848737.7564.130.camel@jmcmullan.timesys> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: CPM2 vs PQ2: The Naming Issue List-Id: Linux on Embedded PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --=-QPI0wvaSl0WXcCocywU3 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think the issue with naming is that there are people that consider the 'part name' to be CPM2 (the macrocell), and other consider the=20 'part name' to be the whole SoC. Both are valid concepts, I just tend to go towards the macrocell side of the fence. If we consider the CPM2 to be a 'part' that dispenses other 'parts', we could actually consider the CPM2 to be a bus-type object. Hmm. I kinda like that, actually. (But then, I'm a crazy nutball) --=20 Jason McMullan "Sure, send me the latest Knoppix DVD as an attachment..." --=-QPI0wvaSl0WXcCocywU3 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBCsEbg8/0vJ5szK6kRAlYIAJ9t3V+BLeQ8NUrLf9+FoBf/eUBVpwCfVBqZ fm3toY2b6dzzQmmIHbB5Oa8= =1TaK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-QPI0wvaSl0WXcCocywU3--