On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 12:27:31PM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Saravana Kannan <skannan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Sorry for the rant, this naming just rubs me the wrong way. I definitely > > appreciate the idea behind these patches. > I don't share the same naming concerns you have (if any, then > confusion with the bluetooth AMP patches and prefixes is more of a > concern to me), but I don't care deeply about names. I guess one very real potential for confusion here is the big/little stuff that ARM are pushing for next generation SoCs where a Linux image does actually run on muliple asymmetric cores. > Feel free to offer a different name, though really 'amp' here only > describes the general model and motivation and is rarely used > throughout the code; we mostly either use 'remoteproc' or 'rpmsg', > which respectively refer to the two frameworks that are being added > (the former responsible for controlling the state of the remote > processors, and the latter for communicating with them). How about using remoteproc then? -- 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
