Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for-4.13 v2 2/2] docs: Replace all instance of ARM by Arm

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Gentle, ping. I don't think there are any conclusion here.

Should we stick to ARM or move to Arm?

Cheers,

On 10/3/19 5:02 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 03/10/2019 16:55, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
> > Julien Grall writes:
> >
> > > Hi Stefano,
> > >
> > > On 10/2/19 2:05 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > > The documentation is using a mix of ARM (old) and Arm (new). To stay
> > > > > consistent, use only the new name.
> > > > Thank you for the patch, it must have been "not fun" to write this
> > > > patch.
> > > >
> > > > However, let me suggest a radical maybe controversial idea. What about
> > > > keeping "ARM" instead of switching? There are several advantages: it is
> > > > easier to grep, no need to worry about case-sensitivity. It is what
> > > > people are used to, and what still use (in my experience at conference
> > > > and at work.) Would it make sense to ignore Arm's marketing and keep 
> > > > the
> > > > old "ARM" nomenclature?
> > > Pretty much all the new documentation on Arm website are now using Arm
> > > (the spec is now called Arm Arm).
> > This confuses me, because I believed that second "Arm" stands for
> > Architecture Reference Manual.
> Sorry it is Arm ARM. But they tend to use the longer name Arm 
> Architecture Reference Manual.
> > > > If not, I'd suggest to also replace "arm" with "Arm" so that at least
> > > > with have consistent cases everywhere. But then the pathnames would
> > > > remain xen/arch/arm, leading to sentences such as:
> > > >
> > > >    (non-zImage)" protocol described in arm/Booting.
> > > >       There are no exception on 64-bit Arm.
> > > >
> > > > With "arm" and "ARM" the distinction was clear between pathnames and
> > > > text (at least to me.) With "arm" and "Arm", I know it is silly but it
> > > > kind of bothers me :-)
> > > How do you deal with Xilinx then? ;)
> > >
> > > > I am not going to insist on this one though.
> > > This is quite similar to a company renaming itself (or got acquired
> > > and the name completely disappear) but in a less radical way. Would
> > > you still keep the old name company in your documentation and/or
> > > mixing the both?
> > BTW, this if what happened with Freescale/NXP. Linux and U-Boot still
> > use "freescale" even for i.MX8 chips.
> Maybe because nobody bothered to do it? I would like some consistency in 
> the documentation and hence using the new name makes sense. But I am not 
> bothered enough to argue whether we should stay in the past.
> Cheers,
--
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel