Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] 83xx: Replace CONFIG_MPC83XX with CONFIG_MPC83xx

[Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@freescale.com>]

On Sun, 24 May 2009 22:13:27 +0200
Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de> wrote:

> Dear Peter,
> 
> In message <1243192952.703.7.camel@ptyser-laptop> you wrote:
> >
> > > CodingStyle Ch.12 suggests that it's the other fsl arches that are in
> > > violation here, not 83XX:
> 
> Agreed...
> 
> > Either way is fine with me, as long as things are consistent.  It looked
> > like most Freescale CPUs in U-Boot as well as Linux used the lowercase
> > convention for CONFIG_<cpu type> so I thought:
> > a. Most likely someone made a conscious decision to use lowercase

I can understand it in comments and quotes, just not in constants in
the code.

> > b. It'd be much easier to change just 83xx than all other arches:)

that's not a good reason to do it this way though.

> > If others would prefer standardizing on uppercase, I can submit new
> > patches for 85xx, 5xxx, 86xx, etc.  This would be still be inconsistent
> > with Linux though, which is a bit annoying.
> 
> It seems Linux uses 8?xx with very few exceptions (CONFIG_SND_VIA82XX*
> and CONFIG_EDAC_MPC85XX), so let's do the same here.

so linux is inconsistent too.

I'm a fan of a more self-consistent CONFIG_MPC85XX_MDS over mixed-case
names like linux' CONFIG_MPC85xx_MDS.

I wonder if the linux ppc guys would accept a
s/CONFIG_MPC8?xx/CONFIG_MPC8?XX/g rename patch for linux...

Kim