>On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Jonathan Walther wrote:
>>
>> Linus, can you remind us again why you found it makes more sense to say
>> "PCI" instead of the more generic "bus"? They are both equally easy to
>> type, and one clearly fits all cases. The other is a popular, but not
>> really generic.
>
>Because "bus" is arguably _too_ generic.
>
>Imagine a machine with sbus and PCI. You'd like the PCI device drivers to
>work without any problems, and they shouldn't be bothered by a sbus
>peripheral that happens to have the same (independent) sbus address.
>
>Note that I don't think this is too strong an argument. I'm definitely not
>too hooked up about the "pci" name. "ioport" and "iomem" works fine for me
>too if people really hate the implication that pci is the "standard" bus
>when it comes to PC's.
>
> Linus
>
I don't understand what's too generic about calling it "bus". I thought that
sort of generality was the purpose.
To me, the problem with calling it "pci" is that it's likely to be taken
literally. People writing for other bus archs will not know or forget that
it's for them too. People writing for pci will add pci specializations to
it.
Its all my opinion, and I'm not campaigning for any particular name. Just
saying that names do matter,
Regards,
Tom
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/