Messages in this thread | | | From | Geert Uytterhoeven <> | Date | Fri, 3 Mar 2023 08:49:04 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/8] dt-bindings: Add linux,kunit binding |
| |
Hi David,
On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 8:16 AM David Gow <davidgow@google.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 at 09:38, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> wrote: > > Document the linux,kunit board compatible string. This board is loaded > > into the Linux kernel when KUnit is testing devicetree dependent code. > > As with the series as a whole, this might need to change a little bit > if we want to either use devicetree overlays and/or other > architectures. > > That being said, I'm okay with having this until then: the only real > topic for bikeshedding is the name. > - Is KUnit best as a board name, or part of the vendor name? > - Do we want to include the architecture in the name? > Should it be "linux,kunit", "linux-kunit,uml", "linux,kunit-uml", etc?
I would not include an architecture (or virtualization method), as this is independent of the architecture or virtualization method.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
-- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
| |