Question regarding naming scheme (HP Jornada 6XX/7XX)

Question regarding naming scheme (HP Jornada 6XX/7XX)

[Kristoffer Ericson]

Greetings,

Just want some input before I start dropping patches everywhere. A simple ack will do nicely if you just agree.

Currently we use the name of the most typical HP Jornada (680 and 720) to mean all 6XX/7XX (= 620/660/680/690 and 720/720/728). 
In the past this has led to some confusion when people tried to compile their own kernels. 
For instance an hp 620 user thought that their system was unsupported because everything was for '680'. Or the other way round
728 users didn't want to use 720 since they thought they would loose their extra ram (only difference between versions).

So, I want to instead use the term 600-series or 700-series. This would mean changing Kconfig/Makefile and driver name.

For example /drivers/input/keyboard/jornada680_kbd.c would become /drivers/input/keyboard/jornada600_kbd.c

The machine name tag would also return (HP Jornada 600-series | HP Jornada 700-series) since I know for instance opie loves to 
grep the machine line. Currently this is set as "hp6xx" for 600-series and "HP Jornada 720" for 700-series. They are related machines so 
it would be nice to unify their output a tad.

Why I want to use 600-series/700-series instead of 6XX/7XX is simply because 600-series/700-series leaves no doubt.

Any objections?

Best wishes
Kristoffer Ericson

Re: Question regarding naming scheme (HP Jornada 6XX/7XX)

[Paul Mundt]

On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 12:03:29AM +0100, Kristoffer Ericson wrote:
> For instance an hp 620 user thought that their system was unsupported
> because everything was for '680'. Or the other way round 728 users
> didn't want to use 720 since they thought they would loose their extra
> ram (only difference between versions).
> 
How exactly is changing from 6XX to 600 going to change this? If users
are confused, then you should be documenting this distinction better and
working on clearing up the confusion. I'm all for making things obvious
to the end user, but there gets to be a point where it just becomes
silly.

> Why I want to use 600-series/700-series instead of 6XX/7XX is simply
> because 600-series/700-series leaves no doubt.
> 
Apparently your end users are more technically apt than I am, as I have
no idea how using 00 over XX makes things any less ambiguous.

We already have a 6xx mach-type that drivers can set their dependency on.
If it's not 680-only, then that's a perfectly reasonable dependency. Feel
free to change the Kconfig text to make the description more useful, but
please don't start idly shuffling around code and symbols because users
can't work out why a driver is available that they can't support.

Besides, the kernel frowns upon recursion, and all you need is to find
two equally confused users with differening viewpoints to hit imminent
death (whether self-inflicted or otherwise).

Re: Question regarding naming scheme (HP Jornada 6XX/7XX)

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On Nov 25, 2007 11:30 PM, Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 12:03:29AM +0100, Kristoffer Ericson wrote:
>
> > Why I want to use 600-series/700-series instead of 6XX/7XX is simply
> > because 600-series/700-series leaves no doubt.
> >
> Apparently your end users are more technically apt than I am, as I have
> no idea how using 00 over XX makes things any less ambiguous.
>
> We already have a 6xx mach-type that drivers can set their dependency on.
> If it's not 680-only, then that's a perfectly reasonable dependency. Feel
> free to change the Kconfig text to make the description more useful, but
> please don't start idly shuffling around code and symbols because users
> can't work out why a driver is available that they can't support.

Agreed. Users simply should not care what a particular module is
called. If Kconfig entries and/or its help is unclear on whta devices
are supported by the drivers let's fix that.

-- 
Dmitry

Re: Question regarding naming scheme (HP Jornada 6XX/7XX)

[Kristoffer Ericson]

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:40:14 -0500
"Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 25, 2007 11:30 PM, Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 12:03:29AM +0100, Kristoffer Ericson wrote:
> >
> > > Why I want to use 600-series/700-series instead of 6XX/7XX is simply
> > > because 600-series/700-series leaves no doubt.
> > >
> > Apparently your end users are more technically apt than I am, as I have
> > no idea how using 00 over XX makes things any less ambiguous.
> >
> > We already have a 6xx mach-type that drivers can set their dependency on.
> > If it's not 680-only, then that's a perfectly reasonable dependency. Feel
> > free to change the Kconfig text to make the description more useful, but
> > please don't start idly shuffling around code and symbols because users
> > can't work out why a driver is available that they can't support.
> 
> Agreed. Users simply should not care what a particular module is
> called. If Kconfig entries and/or its help is unclear on whta devices
> are supported by the drivers let's fix that.
> 
Ok, guess the idea was shot down then :). I'll look at Kconfigs to see how I can make it clearer.
thx for feedback.

> -- 
> Dmitry