Re: [Kernel-discuss] Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/4] SoC base drivers

[Paul Sokolovsky <pmiscml@gmail.com>]

Hello Dmitry,

Tuesday, May 1, 2007, 7:38:44 PM, you wrote:

> ian wrote:
>> On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 17:53 +0400, Dmitry Krivoschekov wrote:
>>> Hi Paul,
>>
>>> I think your referring to the term "SoC (system-on-chip)" is confusing
>>> (at least for me). You rather consider companion chips than SoCs.
>>
>> A 'System' does not imply a CPU. A 'Computer System' would but the word
>> system itself doesnt even imply electronic.
>>
>>
> A "system" means something complete. Yes I agree it doesn't imply a CPU,
> but acronym SoC traditionally imply something different than you propose.
> Adding another meaning for SoC will confuse people because they will have
> to distinguish if it is a processor or just a slave IC.

        I'm afraid we'd just have ontological argument unless tried to
bring in some references. But wikipedia does agree with you,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System-on-a-chip . So, well, down with
redefining SoC then. But "companion" is still too narrow and buzzwordy,
so let's explore Richard Purdie suggestion (in the other mail).


> Thanks,
> Dmitry


-- 
Best regards,
 Paul                            mailto:pmiscml@gmail.com