Paul Sokolovsky wrote: > Hello Dmitry, > > Tuesday, May 1, 2007, 4:53:09 PM, you wrote: > >> I think your referring to the term "SoC (system-on-chip)" is confusing >> (at least for me). You rather consider companion chips than SoCs. > >> Yes, any chip integrating a number of controllers could be considered >> as a system-on-chip but if the chip doesn't make sense without >> some master chip (processor) I'd consider the chip as a companion >> (to the processor) chip. > > Ditto for me - I find "companion" thing confusing. What's > important for the RFC/topic discussed is that it is integrated > controller with many diversified functions, not what it is helper to > something. It's exactly helper. It helps to expand functionality of a main processor. > I understand that for many people SoC means CPU with ties, > but IMHO, it's less stretch to take such chip, remove CPU, and still > call it a SoC, I do not know any chip that would be "just add a CPU and you'll get a complete system", do you?
> than call an integrated audio/touchscreen controller a > companion chip (well, of course it is; and RAM chip too ;-) ). > > Either way, I don't pledge to be a HW designer with > contemporary lexicon. The aim was simple - as a single word would be > too ambiguous, general, or vice-versa, omitting, then acronym is > needed, hopefully existing, and not new, and SoC is the most fitting > TLA, IMHO. If you used ASIC acronym it would be more appropriate and not so ambiguous. What kind of chips you deal with does not fit ASIC acronym? > But I'm open to specific suggestions for improvement. For > example, if I was to write a Documentation/ entry for that, I'd mention > companion chips, peripheral/integrated controllers, etc. "peripheral/integrated controllers" are also within companion chips. Every type of CMOS devices may be a part of processor chip or may be a standalone chip as well as a group of CMOS devices may be a part of the proc chip or may organize a standalone chip. When your chip is missing a processor device then it is not a system but a part of a system, you can not build a complete system on a such chip, so you can not call it a "system-on-chip". > But renaming > drivers/soc/ to drivers/companion/ would be more confusing, Not for me. > as the > concept described is not tied to companion chips per se (even though > many of chips we (handhelds.org) deal with, can be classified as > such). > > Regards, Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
