Messages in this thread | | | From | Arnd Bergmann <> | Date | Wed, 10 Mar 2021 16:39:37 +0100 | Subject | Re: [RFC v2 3/5] arm64: socfpga: rename ARCH_STRATIX10 to ARCH_SOCFPGA64 |
| |
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 4:06 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com> wrote: > On 10/03/2021 15:45, Tom Rix wrote: > > On 3/10/21 1:45 AM, Lee Jones wrote: > > Many other architectures do not have vendor prefix (TEGRA, EXYNOS, > ZYNQMP etc). I would call it the same as in ARMv7 - ARCH_SOCFPGA - but > the Altera EDAC driver depends on these symbols to be different. > Anyway, I don't mind using something else for the name.
I agree the name SOCFPGA is confusing, since it is really a class of device that is made by multiple manufacturers rather than a brand name, but renaming that now would be equally confusing. If the Intel folks could suggest a better name that describes all products in the platform and is less ambiguous, we could rename it to that. I think ARCH_ALTERA would make sense, but I don't know if that is a name that is getting phased out. (We once renamed the Marvell Orion platform to ARCH_MVEBU, but shortly afterwards, Marvell renamed their embedded business unit (EBU) and the name has no longer made sense since).
Regardless of what name we end up with, I do think we should have the same name for 32-bit and 64-bit and instead fix the edac driver to do runtime detection based on the compatible string.
Arnd
| |