On 11/19/07, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 04:31:57PM +0000, Matt Sealey wrote: > > I never said drivers should depend on it but why do you want to name > > an i2s bus as "i2s" or the i2c bus as "i2c"? > > Because that's what they are? > > > There are far, far more descriptive names that can be used. i2s is > > basically audio, so why not "audio" or "sound" or "headphone"? > > For i2s, that may be reasonable, but i2c can have several devices under it. > > > Why is gpt a "gpt" and not a "timer", it defeats the whole object > > of having a name for it. Since drivers never switch on it, why not > > give them real names? > > That one *should* be timer. Ask whoever did the device tree for it. :-P
That one's my fault. sorry. g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (403) 399-0195 _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
