naming conventions and new products - coreboot

30 May 2014


      I was wondering what is the process for creating new products and what 
to call them. In short, who comes up with these names?
For instance, there are a few Intel CPUs called Baytrail - Celerons for 
Desktops and Tablets, Atoms for Embedded. They are both represented now 
in the coreboot source tree. The Celeron Baytrail-T seems to have been 
provided by Google for their Rambi Chromebook. The sources have gone in 
src/soc/intel/baytrail.
OK, that seems fair. But it isn't for the Baytrail-I processor (from the 
ISG division of Intel). Just recently Sage has committed code for 
Baytrail-I as src/soc/intel/fsp_baytrail. I find this very unwieldy and 
lacking clarity in naming conventions.
1) In no way is it clear from the names that src/soc/intel/baytrail is 
for "D,M,T" versions of the CPU.
2) In no way is it clear from the names that src/soc/intel/fsp_baytrail 
is for "I" versions.
3) Why in the world is fsp_ added to the name like that? FSP support 
should be somewhat generic in nature and IMHO doesn't need to be spelled 
out like that.
4) There is a lot of copied code from src/soc/intel/baytrail to 
src/soc/intel/fsp_baytrail. Some integration would by nice.
It would be great if some person or committee were to help clarify and 
make naming conventions a little easier to understand.
By the way, I have a fully functional version working on Baytrail-I as 
well and I put it in my tree as src/soc/intel/baytrail-isg. Works great 
for Bakersport and BayleyBay CRBs. It was my intention to contribute 
this at some point, but I doubt now it will get accepted even if better 
and more complete.
Cheers,
Sean