[PATCH 2/2] arm: mx50_rdp: add i2c bus support

[Jason Liu]

Hi, Richard,

2011/1/14 Richard Zhao <linuxzsc at gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Jason Liu <liu.h.jason at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi, Richard,
>>
>> 2011/1/14 Richard Zhao <richard.zhao at freescale.com>:
>>> Signed-off-by: Richard Zhao <richard.zhao at freescale.com>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/arm/mach-mx5/board-mx50_rdp.c           |    7 +++++++
>>>  arch/arm/mach-mx5/devices-mx50.h             |    3 +++
>>
>> We need align the naming convention with i.mx53/i.mx50 fordevices-mx50.h ,
>> I have send out one patch for it.It seems not good when using devices-mx50.h
>> while using devices-imx53 and devices-imx51.h in the same directory.
>>
>> I think we need use imx as much as possible since i.mx is FSL chip brand name.
>>
>> Sascha, please help merge the following patch if you don't have some
>> comments about it.
>> http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20110110.223149.e2d1fe51.en.html
> I have comments on that thread too. I past here:
> I noticed that too. Sometimes we use imx as part of file name or macro
> name, but other times we use mx . We'd better make some rule that when
> and where we suppose to use what.
> I suggest we move all to mx for short. Reasons:
> - For freescale internal, starting from mx5, we all use mx.
> - macros in soc header files all use mx.
> - soc header file name all use mx too.
> - mach-types all use mx. (count in freescale board only)

No, I prefer to use imx since imx is the chip brand and FSL IC doc
stat it clearly it's i.mx.
And the most important is to keep compatible, we had better keep the
same naming convention.
Otherwise, it will make the directory a little mess.

>
> Thanks
> Richard
>>
>> BR,
>> Jason
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>>> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
>>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>>>
>>
>