Hi Michal, On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 02:06:40PM +0200, Michal Simek wrote: > On 2.9.2016 13:46, Zubair Lutfullah Kakakhel wrote: > > On 09/02/2016 11:27 AM, Michal Simek wrote: > >> On 2.9.2016 12:06, Zubair Lutfullah Kakakhel wrote: > >>> On 09/02/2016 07:25 AM, Michal Simek wrote: > >>>> On 1.9.2016 18:50, Zubair Lutfullah Kakakhel wrote: > >>>>> V1 -> V2 > >>>>> > >>>>> Renamed irq-xilinx to irq-axi-intc > >>>>> Renamed CONFIG_XILINX_INTC to CONFIG_XILINX_AXI_INTC > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I see that this was suggested by Jason Cooper but using axi name > >>>> here is > >>>> not correct. > >>>> There is xps-intc name which is the name used on old OPB hardware > >>>> designs. It means this driver can be still used only on system which > >>>> uses it. > >>> > >>> Wouldn't axi-intc be more suitable moving forwards? > >>> The IP block is now known as axi intc for 5 years as far as I can tell. > >>> > >>> Searching "axi intc" online results in the right docs for current and > >>> future platforms. Please add links to the relevant docs in the comments of the code. > >> > >> yes but we still should support older platform and it is more then this. > >> This is soft-IP core and in future when there is new bus then IP will > >> just change bus interface, etc. > > > > That makes sense. I'll rename the driver to irq-xps-intc.c > > and CONFIG_XILINX_XPS_INTC > > > > Please shout now if anybody has issues with this. > > XPS was shortcut for design tools. You had CONFIG_XILINX_INTC which is > IMHO the best name you can have. Michal, thanks for the background info! Zubair, any problem with CONFIG_XILINX_INTC/irq-xilinx-intc.c ? thx, Jason.
