On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 01:59:14PM +0100, Maciej Kwapulinski wrote: > > Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 05:05:14PM +0100, Maciej Kwapulinski wrote: > .... > >> --- /dev/null > >> +++ b/drivers/misc/gna/gna_driver.h > >> @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@ > >> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */ > >> +/* Copyright(c) 2017-2021 Intel Corporation */ > >> + > >> +#ifndef __GNA_DRIVER_H__ > >> +#define __GNA_DRIVER_H__ > >> + > >> +#include <linux/kernel.h> > >> +#include <linux/mutex.h> > >> +#include <linux/types.h> > >> + > >> +#define GNA_DRV_NAME "gna" > > > > Way too generic, no one knows what "gna" is. > > > > "intel gna" is much more verbose in search engines. > As we do not (plan to) have more "gna" drivers, is the following ok?: > > intel-gna > > the change would imply the following: > > prompt$ lspci -s 00:00.3 -vvvv > 00:00.3 System peripheral: Intel Corporation Device 3190 (rev 03) > Subsystem: Intel Corporation Device 2072 > .... > Kernel driver in use: intel-gna > Kernel modules: gna > > is it ok? Why not intel-gna as the kernel module as well? > also, how about the interface to library (it's part of one of next patches)?: > prompt$ file /dev/gna0 > /dev/gna0: character special (235/0) > > can "gna" stay intact here? Again, I have no idea what "gna" is, so you might want to pick something more descriptive? > I'm pointing this out, because gna exists on the market for a while and > changing the above may have some impact we'd like to avoid. If it exists but Linux does not support it, how would anyone know about it? :) Please use real terms where possible. thanks, greg k-h
