Dear Alessandro Rubini,
In message 20090720080226.GA2463@mail.gnudd.com you wrote:
What about "DRV" or even "D" if you insist? CONFIG_D_I2C_SOFT ?
That's longer than needed, and nobody will understand what the "D_" stands for.
I personally find the config files pretty unreadable. Options that enable a driver should be different from those that select a behaviour, in my opinion.
So what do you think when you read "CONFIG_I2C_SOFT" ?
So many people here seem to take Linux as reference - why not here?
Does Linux use "CONFIG_DRIVER_E1000", "CONFIG_DRIVER_I2C", "CONFIG_DRIVER_IDE", "CONFIG_DRIVER_SCSI" or "CONFIG_DRIVER_SPI"?
No! Linux uses "CONFIG_E1000", "CONFIG_I2C", "CONFIG_IDE", "CONFIG_SCSI" and "CONFIG_SPI".
While people responsible for their board know all the stuff they wrote, but when someone undergoes a more general code change several or all config files must be checked. A driver namespace would help, in my opionion.
Linux has an order of magnitude more drivers than U-Boot, and they do well without this. We don't need this either.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk