Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 23 Nov 2011 16:10:14 +0000 | From | Mark Brown <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/7] Introducing a generic AMP framework |
| |
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@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?
| |