* Pedanekar, Hemant <hemantp@xxxxxx> [111004 02:07]: > Igor Grinberg wrote on Tuesday, October 04, 2011 2:31 PM: > > > On 10/03/11 18:45, Pedanekar, Hemant wrote: > >> Hi Igor, > >> > >> Igor Grinberg wrote on Sunday, October 02, 2011 5:38 PM: > >> > >>> Hi Hemant, > >>> > >>> On 09/29/11 04:09, Hemant Pedanekar wrote: > >>>> This patch adds minimal support and build configuration for TI8148 EVM. > >>>> Also adds support for low level debugging on UART1 console on the EVM. > >>>> > >>>> Note that existing TI8168 EVM file (board-ti8168evm.c) is updated with > >>>> machine info for TI8148 EVM and renamed as board-ti81xxevm.c. > >>> > >>> Should we really rename the existing file? > >>> Shouldn't we just stick to the name of the file submitted first? > >>> (e.g. board-ti8168evm.c) and just add the support for the new > >>> TI8148 EVM in to the existing file? > >> > >> But won't this be misleading? > > > > Misleading? For whom? > > Actually, I don't really care how you call that file. > > What I care (and I think not just me) is uniformity, so > > if we decide to rename all those files that have multiple > > boards supported in them, I'm fine with it. > > > > So pros for my proposed approach would be: > > 1) Currently, there are already board files with multiple boards > > supported in them that follow the approach and renaming them is > > really unnecessary. 2) git log will not break. > > 3) boards that cannot be named after the convention like 81xx > > but can be added to the same file will not require further renaming > > (like 82x8 - I don't really know if that will exist, just wondering). > > 4) This renaming is really what Linus likes ;) > > > > cons: > > 1) Misleading? > > > > Currently, I don't think this renaming is good for anything, > > especially that majority of the board stuff should be transformed > > to the DT descriptors. > > Igor, > I agree on the DT part and also understand the "pros" you mentioned. > > I can submit the v4 of patches with TI8148 EVM support added in exisitng > board-ti8168evm.c. > > Tony, > Are you OK with the above approach? Yes, let's not do renaming unless it's really needed. We'll be getting rid of the board-*.c files anyways with device tree. So let's consider the board-*.c files to be in minimal maintenance mode until they will eventually get removed. Regards, Tony -- 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
