Jason Cooper wrote: > Sebastian Frias wrote: > >> Mason wrote: >> >>> Sebastian Frias wrote: >>> >>>> .../sigma,smp87xx-irqrouter.txt | 69 +++ >>> >>> In the *actual* submission, we can't use a wildcard like smp87xx >>> we'll have to use an actual part number. >> >> Are you sure? >> That would hinder genericity. >> Actually I wanted to call it "sigma,smp-irqrouter.txt" (or >> "sigma,smp,irqrouter.txt"). > > sigma,smp-irqrouter.txt should be fine. The devicetree maintainers > should yelp if they want something different.
Personally, I don't like "smp" because it's too easy to confuse that for "symmetric multi-processor". Come to think of it, I'm not sure the *name* of the file documenting a binding is as important to DT maintainers as the compatible string. >> To me there's no need to link the compatible string of a given HW >> module with that of the chip name the module it is embedded into. For >> example, the generic USB3 driver is "generic-xhci". While this module >> is not generic to be embedded in chips from different manufacturers, >> it is supposed to be generic within Sigma, and multiple Sigma chips >> (with potentially different denominations) can use it. >> >>> >>>> drivers/irqchip/Makefile | 1 + >>>> drivers/irqchip/irq-tango_v2.c | 594 >>>> +++++++++++++++++++++ >>> >>> Likewise, I don't like the "_v2" suffix, it's too generic. >>> Actual submission should use something more specific. >> >> Well, the other driver is irq-tango.c that is generic as well. >> I prefer versioning, as it is unrelated with the actual chip name. > > Is there a name, similar to 'tango', for this version of the IP? > Something that would spark recognition for someone looking for "the damn > driver for this XYZ irqchip I have". If not, irq-tango_v2.c is fine. If we go with the v2 naming scheme, I vote for irq-tango-v2.c for consistency with the GIC drivers. Regards.
