On Sep 12, 2013, at 5:47 PM, David Brown wrote: > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 12:55:36PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: >> >> On Sep 12, 2013, at 12:06 PM, Olof Johansson wrote: > >>> My original request to please use a common prefix for your product >>> families stands. Please prefix with msm-*, or if you have to, qcom-* >>> instead, since you guys can't seem to make your mind up on standard >>> prefixes (msm, apq, etc). >> >> This is silly, I dont see the reason to go with >> qcom-apq<SOC>-<BOARD>.dts and than in the future drop qcom- when we >> mostly likely shift to a dir structure. As engineers we are all too >> aware of the lack of sanity in marketing names, but its what we have >> so we have to live with it. > > At least what we'd decided a year or two ago was to call _everything_ > with an msm* prefix. If marketing comes up with cute prefixes for > things, we would basically ignore them. So, under that, it should be > an msm8074-dragonboard. Admittedly, it might be a little confusing > with the name of the product having the apq in it, but as others have > pointed out, I think there is less confusing than not having a common > prefix on our MSM products. > > At least so far, there are no chips where apq vs msm actually > distinguishes anything. In fact, a simple "decoder ring" would point > out that the 'apq' usually corresponds with the second digit being a > zero. It doesn't help that we've added an 'mpq' prefix as well. > > I don't really see how to satisfy all of this other than qcom-apq*, or > just continue to use msm*. I think msm has run out of steam, especially as more SoCs come out of Qualcomm that aren't just targeting phones & tablets. - k -- Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
