> Do we really need to do that patching right now to add base 4460 support? It should be done sometime, but I see no need for it to be right now. > If we're just doing a bunch of renames all over the place to add support > for a new processor variant, something is wrong. This is exactly the kind > of "crazy churn" Linus was complaining about. In this case the crazy churn > is "let's rename 4430 to 44XX all over the place". To me, this is not 'crazy churn', but rather, correcting an earlier oversight. I did not understand Linus to say "never fix a naming oversight", but "don't change names without a good reason." > To me it's sane to assume that we can have most of 4430 features on 4460 > and don't need to rename 4430 to 44XX for that. Adding 4460 should be > just add few new 4460 defines, then do an arch_initcall to fixup things > between 4430 and 4460. This is a topic upon which mileage varies. My experience has made we wary of making such assumptions, because too often they have turned out to be wrong. It is much better to make it clear that the same code supports both than to leave people guessing. Saying so in the filename is useful. It is also consistent with the naming scheme used in much of the kernel. I don't feel a sense of urgency to correct this, nor a need to hit a merge window, but from my mileage, I would prefer that it be corrected within a reasonable time frame. It seems to me that there is also a bullet to bite here. To achieve the sort of rationalization across the arm architecture that is envisioned, inconsistencies in naming styles between platforms will have to be reconciled and resolved, lest the habit continue.-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
