Re: Inconsistent and ever-changing device naming in Zephyr
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:54:27 +0000
Daniel Thompson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
On 09/02/17 19:27, Chuck Jordan wrote:To clarify, the concern behind my original mail is exactly regardingPersonally I'm not a fan of gratuitously different naming (for
having a good consistent scheme for "SoC-wide defaults". Across SoCs of
course, and with an idea that "reference" boards for these SoCs (as
available in Zephyr upstream) would follow them.
With a usecase you present above - support for widely varying OEM
boards, I agree that it should be possible to override "anything", and
the only scalable way to do that appears to be the Device Tree.
(I would argue whether each and every OEM should override too much for
a particular board, and if many actually would do that, but that's
not the point of the discussion, it instead being that Zephyr should
provide flexibility to do so, while hopefully also giving good
guidelines on suggested naming, and provide in-tree device ports which
adhere to these guidelines).
Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro
http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog