Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750907AbXEAOhF (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 May 2007 10:37:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751653AbXEAOhF (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 May 2007 10:37:05 -0400 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.179]:38434 "EHLO py-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750907AbXEAOhC (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 May 2007 10:37:02 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:date:from:x-priority:message-id:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=JzG82N3PmQb2qq4v7z5YHLoVgl3z5N2HU0PtnBtzFhUU7blvhIsdQhLUSBeDZzELSHUntCyUWVzJFK0bsV/yoe2JPpHTeTbTKKjnkid7vUlPBehZslfjLHyCBCDmvFYRtJXrboz6HGEynP0rGhtsFI7C/JDnyS2gwI5LhR819u0= Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 17:36:57 +0300 From: Paul Sokolovsky X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1068016897.20070501173657@gmail.com> To: Dmitry Krivoschekov CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk, Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/4] SoC base drivers In-Reply-To: <46374645.2030900@gmail.com> References: <1354376306.20070501080806@gmail.com> <46374645.2030900@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2162 Lines: 53 Hello Dmitry, Tuesday, May 1, 2007, 4:53:09 PM, you wrote: > Hi Paul, > Paul Sokolovsky wrote: >> In contemporary systems, lots of functionality oftentimes handled by various >> kinds of SoCs (system-on-chip), representing a number of deversified >> controllers packaged in one chip. > I think your referring to the term "SoC (system-on-chip)" is confusing > (at least for me). You rather consider companion chips than SoCs. > Yes, any chip integrating a number of controllers could be considered > as a system-on-chip but if the chip doesn't make sense without > some master chip (processor) I'd consider the chip as a companion > (to the processor) chip. Ditto for me - I find "companion" thing confusing. What's important for the RFC/topic discussed is that it is integrated controller with many diversified functions, not what it is helper to something. I understand that for many people SoC means CPU with ties, but IMHO, it's less stretch to take such chip, remove CPU, and still call it a SoC, than call an integrated audio/touchscreen controller a companion chip (well, of course it is; and RAM chip too ;-) ). Either way, I don't pledge to be a HW designer with contemporary lexicon. The aim was simple - as a single word would be too ambiguous, general, or vice-versa, omitting, then acronym is needed, hopefully existing, and not new, and SoC is the most fitting TLA, IMHO. But I'm open to specific suggestions for improvement. For example, if I was to write a Documentation/ entry for that, I'd mention companion chips, peripheral/integrated controllers, etc. But renaming drivers/soc/ to drivers/companion/ would be more confusing, as the concept described is not tied to companion chips per se (even though many of chips we (handhelds.org) deal with, can be classified as such). > Regards, > Dmitry -- Best regards, Paul mailto:pmiscml@gmail.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/