Tony Lindgren wrote on Friday, October 07, 2011 12:47 AM: > * 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 Ok, thanks Igor and Tony, I will send v4 with above change. Hemant-- 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
