Re: Inconsistent and ever-changing device naming in Zephyr


Chuck Jordan <Chuck.Jordan@...>
 

Personally I'm not a fan of gratuitously different naming (for example different driver writers arbitrarily selecting ALLCAPS and lowercase).
However I *am* a fan of selecting labels from "facts" about the board (silk screening, datasheet port/connector names, etc).
As a trivial example I'd really dislike a system where "for consistency"
we force BSPs to call something "UART-0" when the silkscreen (or
front-panel) says "DB9-1".
I guess that is an argument *against* board-to-board consistency!
[chuck] Minor point, but the device driver talks to a UART and the UART may have a different designation on the schematic, not visible to the outside user.
A name like "DB9-1" is a physical connector name, and it can be unclear which UART is attached to it, which jumpers need to be changed, whether there is another layer of switching between UART and connector and so forth. I've seen boards where a UART can be directed to one of many different connectors via jumper choices. So opening "DB9-1" might fail if the jumpers are wrong, for example. Driver is for UART only ... not the physical wiring beyond the UART.

Join devel@lists.zephyrproject.org to automatically receive all group messages.