On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:03 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 11:48:59AM +0300, Todor Tomov wrote: >> > + * When the 96Board naming of a line and the schematic name of >> > + * the same line are in conflict, the 96Board specification >> > + * takes precedence, which means that the external UART on the >> > + * LSEC is named UART0 while the schematic and SoC names this >> > + * UART3. This is only for the informational lines i.e. "[FOO]", >> >> It seems to me that this can lead to some confusion for cases when >> some schematic names have 96board names and others don't. (An >> example below.) However I don't really see any better way to do >> it. I'm wondering whether adding the schematic name in >> the comment (for gpios which are named with 96board names) >> can help a little. What do you think? Or any other idea? >> > > Specifying the schematic names in comments is a good idea! > > Linus: Do you have any suggestion here? Go for this. Generally ask the question: what does the user need? In this case, especially userspace libraries like mriaa (right name?) should be able to work out-of-the-box without knowing what board it is but know it has a 96board connector. Yours, Linus Walleij -- 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
