Re: Inconsistent and ever-changing device naming in Zephyr


Paul Sokolovsky
 

Hello Andy,

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 22:56:40 -0600
Andy Gross <andy.gross@linaro.org> wrote:

[]

That brings us to the device names themselves. I am of two minds on
this. On one hand, the names need to match the names on the board or
board documentation. It makes it difficult for users to have to
determine the zephyr name that matches the silkscreen name. On the
other hand, having all these different formats trigger my OCD. I feel
stronger about the silkscreen/documentation matching the names. So
place my vote in the chaos column.
Well, there're dozens of architectures in the world. Thousands of
individual SoC/MCU models using them, and millions of individual board
models using those SoCs. Generally, no OS can support this
million-variety upstream, and even if it gives *perfect* and the
*easiest* to use tools for that downstream, a lot of vendors behind
those millions of boards still won't use them right or at all
(projections roughly based on the Linux experience).

So, the talk is that "SoC" level should be the primary, and naming for
one SoC should be reasonably consistent with all the rest. Than a board
OEM can save a bunch of trouble both themselves and their users by just
naming their board signals what the SoC calls them - or go thru the
trouble of overriding them on OS, etc. levels, documenting how their
virtual signals map to real SoC's, etc.

[]

--
Best Regards,
Paul

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

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