On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 18:37, Segher Boessenkool wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

guts@e00000 {

quoted

quoted

If "guts" is some kind of official name (i.e., the
block is called that in the user manual), it looks
okay to me.

No! It is not official name. It is provided by Kumar. It should be a
abbr. standing for "Global Utilities" as far as my understand.

So the official name is "global utilities block"?

quoted

quoted

Otherwise, please change; in fact, just
change the name anyway (not the compatible), to
"shared-soc-regs" or something like that;

I can not agree with you. "shared-soc-regs" can not describe the
property of this kind of register.
The official description for this set of registers:

"The global utilities block controls power management, I/O device
enabling, power-on-reset (POR) configuration monitoring, 
general-purpose
I/O signal configuration, alternate function selection for

multiplexed

quoted

signals, and clock control.

gub (Kumar's style?): global utilities block
or
global-uti-regs or global-uti (Segher's style?)
may be better.

"global-utilities" sounds fine to me, although the
name doesn't actually say anything.  Let's avoid
abbr.s unless they are very widely known.

"global-utilities" seems good to me!

quoted

quoted

 "name"
should be descriptive (but terse).

Agree!
But we should reach a agreement!

Nah, you guys just need to come up with a good name :-)
I would just call it "control" perhaps ;-)

It doesn't matter much, but "name" should be human-
readable, human-understandable, and short.  A made-up
acronym doesn't work (although I like "guts", sure --
put it in your "compatible" property ;-) )

Agree!
Thanks.
Roy