lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1 01/12] gna: add driver module
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 01:59:14PM +0100, Maciej Kwapulinski wrote:
>
> Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 05:05:14PM +0100, Maciej Kwapulinski wrote:
> ....
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/drivers/misc/gna/gna_driver.h
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
> >> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
> >> +/* Copyright(c) 2017-2021 Intel Corporation */
> >> +
> >> +#ifndef __GNA_DRIVER_H__
> >> +#define __GNA_DRIVER_H__
> >> +
> >> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> >> +#include <linux/mutex.h>
> >> +#include <linux/types.h>
> >> +
> >> +#define GNA_DRV_NAME "gna"
> >
> > Way too generic, no one knows what "gna" is.
> >
>
> "intel gna" is much more verbose in search engines.
> As we do not (plan to) have more "gna" drivers, is the following ok?:
>
> intel-gna
>
> the change would imply the following:
>
> prompt$ lspci -s 00:00.3 -vvvv
> 00:00.3 System peripheral: Intel Corporation Device 3190 (rev 03)
> Subsystem: Intel Corporation Device 2072
> ....
> Kernel driver in use: intel-gna
> Kernel modules: gna
>
> is it ok?

Why not intel-gna as the kernel module as well?

> also, how about the interface to library (it's part of one of next patches)?:
> prompt$ file /dev/gna0
> /dev/gna0: character special (235/0)
>
> can "gna" stay intact here?

Again, I have no idea what "gna" is, so you might want to pick something
more descriptive?

> I'm pointing this out, because gna exists on the market for a while and
> changing the above may have some impact we'd like to avoid.

If it exists but Linux does not support it, how would anyone know about
it? :)

Please use real terms where possible.

thanks,

greg k-h

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-26 14:05    [W:0.074 / U:0.084 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site