[PATCH 0/7] Introducing a generic AMP framework

[Mark Brown]

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 12:27:31PM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Saravana Kannan <skannan at codeaurora.org> wrote:

> > Sorry for the rant, this naming just rubs me the wrong way. I definitely
> > appreciate the idea behind these patches.

> I don't share the same naming concerns you have (if any, then
> confusion with the bluetooth AMP patches and prefixes is more of a
> concern to me), but I don't care deeply about names.

I guess one very real potential for confusion here is the big/little
stuff that ARM are pushing for next generation SoCs where a Linux image
does actually run on muliple asymmetric cores.

> Feel free to offer a different name, though really 'amp' here only
> describes the general model and motivation and is rarely used
> throughout the code; we mostly either use 'remoteproc' or 'rpmsg',
> which respectively refer to the two frameworks that are being added
> (the former responsible for controlling the state of the remote
> processors, and the latter for communicating with them).

How about using remoteproc then?