Re: [PATCH v2]: Fix e500 v2 core reboot bug

[Zang Roy-r61911 <tie-fei.zang@freescale.com>]

On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 18:37, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >>>> guts@e00000 {
> 
> >> If "guts" is some kind of official name (i.e., the
> >> block is called that in the user manual), it looks
> >> okay to me.
> > No! It is not official name. It is provided by Kumar. It should be a
> > abbr. standing for "Global Utilities" as far as my understand.
> 
> So the official name is "global utilities block"?
> 
> >> Otherwise, please change; in fact, just
> >> change the name anyway (not the compatible), to
> >> "shared-soc-regs" or something like that;
> > I can not agree with you. "shared-soc-regs" can not describe the
> > property of this kind of register.
> > The official description for this set of registers:
> >
> > "The global utilities block controls power management, I/O device
> > enabling, power-on-reset (POR) configuration monitoring, 
> > general-purpose
> > I/O signal configuration, alternate function selection for
> multiplexed
> > signals, and clock control.
> >
> > gub (Kumar's style?): global utilities block
> > or
> > global-uti-regs or global-uti (Segher's style?)
> > may be better.
> 
> "global-utilities" sounds fine to me, although the
> name doesn't actually say anything.  Let's avoid
> abbr.s unless they are very widely known.
"global-utilities" seems good to me!
> 
> >>  "name"
> >> should be descriptive (but terse).
> >>
> > Agree!
> > But we should reach a agreement!
> 
> Nah, you guys just need to come up with a good name :-)
> I would just call it "control" perhaps ;-)
> 
> It doesn't matter much, but "name" should be human-
> readable, human-understandable, and short.  A made-up
> acronym doesn't work (although I like "guts", sure --
> put it in your "compatible" property ;-) )
Agree!
Thanks.
Roy