From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alessandro Rubini Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 10:02:26 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BRFC=5D=A0CONFIG_naming_convetion?= In-Reply-To: <20090718222523.D4177832E416@gemini.denx.de> References: <20090718222523.D4177832E416@gemini.denx.de> <20090718110338.GA30699@game.jcrosoft.org> <200907181115.26404.rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org> <20090718175046.E8123832E416@gemini.denx.de> <200907181713.25601.rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org> Message-ID: <20090720080226.GA2463@mail.gnudd.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de >> > > I would think should be CONFIG_DRIVERS_PATA_BFIN >> > >> > I dosagree, the "DRIVERS" part is just added line noise. >> >> It's a name space - making sure it is differentiated from an option. > > Yeah, and we end up with variable names that cannot be used any more > because they exceed the maximum line length. What about "DRV" or even "D" if you insist? CONFIG_D_I2C_SOFT ? I personally find the config files pretty unreadable. Options that enable a driver should be different from those that select a behaviour, in my opinion. While people responsible for their board know all the stuff they wrote, but when someone undergoes a more general code change several or all config files must be checked. A driver namespace would help, in my opionion. /alessandro