Re: Inconsistent and ever-changing device naming in Zephyr

Erwan Gouriou

Hi Paul, 

But the current question is whether consistency is desirable at all,
i.e. would maintainers of individual SoCs agree each making some
changes to their code/config, and Zephyr maintainers agree to
uphold it afterwards. Given that DT has yet some way to go widely in
Zephyr, discussion or at least consideration of this "consistent
naming" idea might start in parallel.

For STM32, my view is as follows:
I understand the concern and need for having naming consistency,
thought, I'm concerned about different instances numbering.
Some starts from 0, some starts from 1:
UART_1 in ref manual being referenced as UART_2  in Zephyr 
could be source of error.

At least keeping numbering (or "lettering" for A/B/C) consistent from
board/manual to API is required from my point of view.
Then I'm ok if there is a naming convention "UART_x" accross vendors.


Join to automatically receive all group messages.