[U-Boot] [RFC] CONFIG naming convetion

[Heiko Schocher <hs@denx.de>]

Hello Wolfgang,

Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> In message <200907181115.26404.rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org> you wrote:
>> It would be nice to come up with some list of namespaces, and what they
>> they should be used for...
> 
> Agreed.
> 
>> For example, should it be:
>> CONFIG_DRIVER_OMAP24XX_I2C
>> or
>> CONFIG_SYS_I2C_DRIVER_OMAP24XX
>> or
>> CONFIG_DRIVER_I2C_OMAP24XX
> 
> Well, the difference between CONFIG_ and CONFIG_SYS_ is well-defined.
> 
> And the "DRIVER_" part makes not much sense to me in any of the
> examples above. 

Agreed.

> My personal way of thinking about such options is usually  CPU/archi-
> tecture  first,  so I would probably chose CONFIG_OMAP24XX_I2C to en-
> able/disable the I2C driver on a OMAP24XX based board, but  I  under-
> stand  that there are reasons to prefer CONFIG_I2C_OMAP24XX as well -
> let's see if there is a clear majority of opiniions...

I vote for CONFIG_I2C_xxx because we collect all i2c drivers in
drivers/i2c without considering the plattform, so I think CONFIG_I2C_
represents better the code structure.

>> Again - which is only used in one place:
>> drivers/i2c/Makefile:COBJS-$(CONFIG_DRIVER_OMAP24XX_I2C) += omap24xx_i2c.o
>> include/configs/omap2420h4.h:#define CONFIG_DRIVER_OMAP24XX_I2C
>>
>> Which is fine - since it is a driver, which I'm sure that people out of tree use.
> 
> Well, if only out-of-tree ports use it, it probably should never have
> been added in the first place.
> 
>> I would think should be CONFIG_DRIVERS_PATA_BFIN
> 
> I dosagree, the "DRIVERS" part is just added line noise.

Yep.

bye
Heiko
-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany