From owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org Fri Oct 25 03:39:17 2002
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by castle.jp.FreeBSD.org (8.11.6+3.4W/8.11.3) id g9OIdHv09218;
	Fri, 25 Oct 2002 03:39:17 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org)
Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (mail-out2.apple.com [17.254.0.51])
	by castle.jp.FreeBSD.org (8.11.6+3.4W/8.11.3) with ESMTP/inet id g9OIdB309211;
	Fri, 25 Oct 2002 03:39:11 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from msmith@freebsd.org)
Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225])
	by mail-out2.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9OId8I21682;
	Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:39:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scv3.apple.com (scv3.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com
 (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id <T5e229b99c8118164e1600@mailgate2.apple.com>;
 Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:39:08 -0700
Received: from freebsd.org (vpn-scv-x1-91.apple.com [17.219.193.91])
	by scv3.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9OId7K29922;
	Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:39:08 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v546)
Cc: Mitsuru IWASAKI <iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org>
To: acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org
From: Michael Smith <msmith@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20021024141253.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
Message-Id: <E0FF1663-E77F-11D6-B5AD-0050E4660701@freebsd.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.546)
Reply-To: acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org
Precedence: list
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:39:07 -0700
X-Sequence: acpi-jp 1905
Subject: [acpi-jp 1905] Re: Any objections to renaming 'device acpica' to
Errors-To: owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org
Sender: owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org
X-Originator: msmith@freebsd.org
X-Distribute: distribute version 2.1 (Alpha) patchlevel 24e+021018


On Thursday, October 24, 2002, at 11:12 AM, John Baldwin wrote:

> On 24-Oct-2002 Mitsuru IWASAKI wrote:
>>> Are there any objections to renaming the new-bus ACPI device
>>> from acpica to acpi to match the character device, kernel module,
>>> and manpage names?
>>
>> I have no objections.
>> And how about changing sys/dev/acpica/ to sys/dev/acpi/ ?
>
> Hmm good point.  I can do that as well if desired.  I think the
> contrib code should stay where it is since Intel's code drop
> is called ACPICA.

IMO, it should always be a module and never actually compiled into
the kernel.  But calling it 'acpi' would be fine.

  = Mike

