On Sat, 20 Jan 2001, Richard Earnshaw wrote:

> > > #define CPU_ID_80200            0x69052000
> 
> > Assuming that with the CPU_ID_80200 you mean the Intel
> > Xscale(1?) ... would it then not be a better idea to call it
> > CPU_ID_Xscale1 or CPU_ID_Xscale80200 ??
> 
> Well, Xscale1 would be wrong, since that suggests the architecture rather 
> than the specific chip that is being identified here.  The other is 
> long-winded IMO, but maybe CPU_ID_X80200, perhaps with a comment /* XScale 
> */ after it would be sensible.

FWIW, I'm currently calling it CPU_ID_I80200, since there's a tradition in
the tree of referring to Intel chips by prefixing an "i".  Intel refer to
it as "Intel(R) 80200 I/O Processor" or "Intel(R) 80200 Processor based on
Intel(R) XScale Microarchitecture".  They don't refer to it as an "XScale
80200", so I don't think we should either.  Since it's not obvious from
its name that the i80200 is based on an XScale core, I'll add a comment to
that effect.

Oh, and mixed-case preprocessor macros are evil.

-- 
Ben Harris                                                   <bjh21@netbsd.org>
Portmaster, NetBSD/arm26               <URL:http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/arm26/>