czw., 7 maj 2020 o 15:16 Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> napisał(a): > > On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 12:50:15PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > czw., 7 maj 2020 o 11:46 Mark-MC.Lee <Mark-MC.Lee@xxxxxxxxxxxx> napisał(a): > > > > > > Hi Bartosz: > > > I think the naming of this driver and its Kconfig option is too generic > > > that will confuse with current mediatek SoCs eth driver architecture(for > > > all mt7xxx SoCs). > > > Since mtk_eth_mac.c is not a common MAC part for all mediatek SoC but > > > only a specific eth driver for mt85xx, it will be more reasonable to > > > name it as mt85xx_eth.c and change NET_MEDIATEK_MAC to > > > NET_MEDIATEK_MT85XX. How do you think? > > > > > > > Hi Mark, > > > > I actually consulted this with MediaTek and the name is their idea. > > Many drivers in drivers/net/ethernet have very vague names. I guess > > this isn't a problem. > > They have vague names, but they tend to be not confusing. > > NET_MEDIATEK_MAC vs NET_MEDIATEK_SOC is confusing. > > I think the proposed name, mt85xx_eth.c and NET_MEDIATEK_MT85XX is > good. Or some variant on this, mt8xxx? > I've just verified with MediaTek that this IP will be used in future designs as well - even on ones that don't share the mt8* prefix. It doesn't really have a name though by itself. How much confusion can it cause anyway? People who want to compile this driver will know which one to choose, right? It's not like it's an i2c component shared across many board designs. Bart
