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

[Paul Sokolovsky <pmiscml@gmail.com>]

Hello Dmitry,

Tuesday, May 1, 2007, 4:53:09 PM, you wrote:

> Hi Paul,

> Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
>> In contemporary systems, lots of functionality oftentimes handled by various
>> kinds of SoCs (system-on-chip), representing a number of deversified
>> controllers packaged in one chip. 

> I think your referring to the term "SoC (system-on-chip)" is confusing
> (at least for me). You rather consider companion chips than SoCs.

> Yes, any chip integrating a number of controllers could be considered
> as a system-on-chip but if the chip doesn't make sense without
> some master chip (processor) I'd consider the chip as a companion
> (to the processor) chip.

        Ditto for me - I find "companion" thing confusing. What's
important for the RFC/topic discussed is that it is integrated
controller with many diversified functions, not what it is helper to
something. I understand that for many people SoC means CPU with ties,
but IMHO, it's less stretch to take such chip, remove CPU, and still
call it a SoC, than call an integrated audio/touchscreen controller a
companion chip (well, of course it is; and RAM chip too ;-) ).

        Either way, I don't pledge to be a HW designer with
contemporary lexicon. The aim was simple - as a single word would be
too ambiguous, general, or vice-versa, omitting, then acronym is
needed, hopefully existing, and not new, and SoC is the most fitting
TLA, IMHO. But I'm open to specific suggestions for improvement. For
example, if I was to write a Documentation/ entry for that, I'd mention
companion chips, peripheral/integrated controllers, etc. But renaming
drivers/soc/ to drivers/companion/ would be more confusing, as the
concept described is not tied to companion chips per se (even though
many of chips we (handhelds.org) deal with, can be classified as
such).


> Regards,
> Dmitry


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