Dear Alessandro Rubini,
In message <20090720080226.ga2...@mail.gnudd.com> you wrote:
>
> What about "DRV" or even "D" if you insist? CONFIG_D_I2C_SOFT ?
That's longer than needed, and nobody will understand what the "D_"
stands for.
> I personally find the config files pretty unreadable. Options that
> enable a driver should be different from those that select a
> behaviour, in my opinion.
So what do you think when you read "CONFIG_I2C_SOFT" ?
So many people here seem to take Linux as reference - why not here?
Does Linux use "CONFIG_DRIVER_E1000", "CONFIG_DRIVER_I2C",
"CONFIG_DRIVER_IDE", "CONFIG_DRIVER_SCSI" or "CONFIG_DRIVER_SPI"?
No! Linux uses "CONFIG_E1000", "CONFIG_I2C", "CONFIG_IDE",
"CONFIG_SCSI" and "CONFIG_SPI".
> While people responsible for their board know all the stuff they
> wrote, but when someone undergoes a more general code change several or
> all config files must be checked. A driver namespace would help, in my
> opionion.
Linux has an order of magnitude more drivers than U-Boot, and they do
well without this. We don't need this either.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de
The more complex the mind, the greater the need for the simplicity of
play.
-- Kirk, "Shore Leave", stardate 3025.8
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
