Hi Stefano,
On 10/2/19 2:05 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
The documentation is using a mix of ARM (old) and Arm (new). To stay
consistent, use only the new name.
Thank you for the patch, it must have been "not fun" to write this
patch.
However, let me suggest a radical maybe controversial idea. What about
keeping "ARM" instead of switching? There are several advantages: it is
easier to grep, no need to worry about case-sensitivity.
It is what
people are used to, and what still use (in my experience at conference
and at work.) Would it make sense to ignore Arm's marketing and keep the
old "ARM" nomenclature?
Pretty much all the new documentation on Arm website are now using Arm
(the spec is now called Arm Arm).
If not, I'd suggest to also replace "arm" with "Arm" so that at least
with have consistent cases everywhere. But then the pathnames would
remain xen/arch/arm, leading to sentences such as:
(non-zImage)" protocol described in arm/Booting.
There are no exception on 64-bit Arm.
With "arm" and "ARM" the distinction was clear between pathnames and
text (at least to me.) With "arm" and "Arm", I know it is silly but it
kind of bothers me :-)
How do you deal with Xilinx then? ;)
I am not going to insist on this one though.
This is quite similar to a company renaming itself (or got acquired and
the name completely disappear) but in a less radical way. Would you
still keep the old name company in your documentation and/or mixing the
both?
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
