[PATCH v3 01/13] ARM: mvebu: rename armada-370-xp.c to armada-mvebu.c

[Jason Cooper]

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:55:26PM +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Dear Arnd Bergmann,
> 
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:50:15 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Thursday 13 February 2014 12:04:23 Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> > > In preparation to the introduction of the support of Armada 375 and
> > > Armada 38x, this commit renames arch/arm/mach-mvebu/armada-370-xp.c to
> > > arch/arm/mach-mvebu/armada-mvebu.c. The armada-mvebu.c name was chosen
> > > because:
> > > 
> > >  * As we are going to merge the support for Kirkwood and Dove into
> > >    mach-mvebu, there will be other files with DT_MACHINE_START
> > >    structures, so a generic name such as board-dt.c or mvebu.c does
> > >    not work.
> > > 
> > >  * A simple armada.c does not work, because there are Marvell Armada
> > >    SOCs that are not part of the MVEBU family. For example, the
> > >    Marvell Armada 1500 are part of the mach-berlin family, which is a
> > >    completely separate line of SOCs.
> > 
> > Your reasoning for the new name makes a lot of sense, but my personal
> > opinion is that I'd rather leave the name as it is and deal with the
> > fact that it's not the best name. Renaming files often causes unexpected
> > problems, in particular if someone else wants to modify the same file.
> 
> I believe it's a matter of taste here. Having a file named
> armada-370-xp.c that handles Armada 375 and Armada 38x looks highly
> confusing to me, and I believe both Grégory and Ezequiel were of the
> same opinion.
> 
> The number of changes to this file is very limited, so the probability
> of having a large number of complicated patches touching the same file
> being in flight is fairly low.
> 
> Maybe we can leave this taste decision to the mach-mvebu maintainers?

board-v7.c and then board-v5.c ?

thx,

Jason.