| Message ID | 20180326121655.13403-1-jagan@amarulasolutions.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | ARM: i.MX6: Add proper CONFIG names | expand |
Hi Jagan, sorry, I see patch is already V3, I have missed the previous ones. Anyway: On 26/03/2018 14:16, Jagan Teki wrote: > ARCH_MX6 -> ARCH_IMX6 > MX6 -> SOC_IMX6 > MX6D -> SOC_IMX6D > MX6DL -> SOC_IMX6DL > MX6Q -> SOC_IMX6Q > MX6S -> SOC_IMX6S I do not understand which is the added value for this patchset, except that it could potentially break many boards. I can understand if there would be a name conflict with some other SOCs, but there is not. Why should we soo in this way ? > MX6SL -> SOC_IMX6SL > MX6Sx -> SOC_IMX6SX > MX6SLL -> SOC_IMX6SLL > MX6UL -> SOC_IMX6UL > MX6UL_LITESOM -> SOC_IMX6UL_LITESOM > MX6UL_OPOS6UL -> SOC_IMX6UL_OPOS6UL Well, and this is completely wrong. LITESOM is a SOM, not a SOC. So to be honest, we should have the hierarchy SOC (MX6UL) ==> SOM (LITESOM). But we have already, because both MX6UL and MX6UL_LITESOM are defined. IMHO this change would like to clean up, but it adds more confusion. Best regards, Stefano Babic
Hi Stefano, On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Stefano Babic <sbabic@denx.de> wrote: > Hi Jagan, > > sorry, I see patch is already V3, I have missed the previous ones. Anyway: > > On 26/03/2018 14:16, Jagan Teki wrote: >> ARCH_MX6 -> ARCH_IMX6 >> MX6 -> SOC_IMX6 >> MX6D -> SOC_IMX6D >> MX6DL -> SOC_IMX6DL >> MX6Q -> SOC_IMX6Q >> MX6S -> SOC_IMX6S > > > I do not understand which is the added value for this patchset, except > that it could potentially break many boards. I can understand if there > would be a name conflict with some other SOCs, but there is not. For me CONFIG_MX6 doesn't look like SOC macro, until if we specify SOC on it, and rest of architectures do follow the same and if you see Linux about naming convention on imx6 this change way to sync that. If we follow better naming and able to sync other arch along with Linux and make no confusion with user, this change can applicable? > > Why should we soo in this way ? > >> MX6SL -> SOC_IMX6SL >> MX6Sx -> SOC_IMX6SX >> MX6SLL -> SOC_IMX6SLL >> MX6UL -> SOC_IMX6UL >> MX6UL_LITESOM -> SOC_IMX6UL_LITESOM >> MX6UL_OPOS6UL -> SOC_IMX6UL_OPOS6UL > > Well, and this is completely wrong. LITESOM is a SOM, not a SOC. So to > be honest, we should have the hierarchy SOC (MX6UL) ==> SOM (LITESOM). > But we have already, because both MX6UL and MX6UL_LITESOM are defined. > > IMHO this change would like to clean up, but it adds more confusion. If your OK, I will split this change and send separate patches. Jagan.