On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:

> 	from the following comment, i believe we should split evbsh3
> 	into evbsh3el and evbsh3eb (MACHINE_ARCH will be separate too).
> 	http://mail-index.netbsd.org/port-sh3/2000/10/20/0002.html
>
> 	there are couple of questions:
> 	- is sys/arch/evbsh3/evbsh3/shb.c really dependent to evbsh3?
> 	  should we move it to sys/arch/sh3/sh3?
> 	- is "sh3" a good name?  "i386" is okay then we should be okay :-)
> 	  "superh"?  "hitachi-sh"?
> 	other items are minor details, but first of all i'd like to hear
> 	your opinion...

	If its intended to have the same kernel support sh4, sh5 and
	future boards, then I'd personally be inclined to go for
	'superh' or similar, even if earlier CPUs are not supported
	(prior art in m68k/mac68k).. Maybe just 'sh' to match gcc?

	Unfortunately that gives such gems as evbsheb and evbshel,
	though they are better than evbsuperhel & evbsuperheb :)
	Maybe 'ev' instead of 'evb'?


		David/absolute		-- www.netbsd.org: No hype required --