> One advantage of indices is that they avoid endless arguments about the
> exact name (and spelling) of things.
Right, though in that case, nobody gets to have to decide on the name,
it comes from the chip manufacturer pin naming or data sheet.
I agree in general. It has long been a convention of mine to follow the
vendor's names as exactly as possible. But that often presents
difficulties. Many of them have been touched on in our previous
discussion but I'll list some here just to emphasize the problem we face:
a) Inconsistent naming within a vendor's documentation set - datasheet
spells it one way, programmer's manual another, appnotes/porting guide
still another, reference schematic spells it two different ways (pin
name on part versus net name of signal wire).
b) Sometimes the name is abbreviated and sometimes spelled out. SMBALRT
vs. SMbus Alert.
c) Different tools (CAD programs, word processors) have different
conventions leading to existence of ambiguously-representable name
components - particular cases in point are overbars for active low
signals and embedded spaces/underscores/hyphens in names.
d) Compatible part from different vendors leads to confusion about which
vendor's names are canonical. Or leading vendor goes out of business or
gets bought.
These problems are getting worse rapidly as more devices are being
sourced from Asia, where the linguistic connection to the Roman alphabet
is tenuous.
You need a Pope to decide what is canonical.
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
