From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans de Goede Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 09:23:27 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 03/10] sunxi: Introduce a hidden ARCH_SUN6I Kconfig bool In-Reply-To: <1429127245.5660.21.camel@hellion.org.uk> References: <1429027621-19252-1-git-send-email-hdegoede@redhat.com> <1429027621-19252-3-git-send-email-hdegoede@redhat.com> <552E14DC.60101@redhat.com> <552E1C34.1090401@redhat.com> <1429127245.5660.21.camel@hellion.org.uk> Message-ID: <552F636F.9030904@redhat.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi, On 15-04-15 21:47, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 10:45 +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: >> It is not obvious which MACH_SUN?I are ARCH_SUN6I derived. So if you >> can come up with a descriptive name for 'a number of things in common, >> such as having separate ahb reset registers in the ccm' that's fine >> otherwise this obfuscates the code, not clarifies. > > I don't particularly object to the patch but this occurred to me too. I > suppose the rule is "first sunxi to look this way". > > How about we call groups of similar SoCs a "generation", i.e. > ARCH_SUNXI_GEN2 is what is called ARCH_SUN6I here, meaning GEN1 would be > SUN4/5/7I. I like the GEN idea, but not the numbering as it is a bit too arbitrary how about: ARCH_SUNXI_GEN_SUN6I or (better I think) just SUNXI_GEN_SUN6I ? I know that does not solve the fact that MACH_SUN7I is SUNXI_GEN_SUN4I but we cannot fix that, at least this way it will be explicit. Regards, Hans