I think some of the entries in https://github.com/openhwgroup/core-v-docs/tree/master/program/Project%20Descriptions%20and%20Plans should be renamed.
It really is about consistency.
For example some paths have different styles of naming...:
CORE-V CVA5, CORE-V-MCU SoC
and then we have
CVA6, SDK
which don't have context... surely the CVA6 should be CORE-V CVA6 etc or is it not a CORE-V?
or in fact if this whole tree is under core-v-docs - do any need the CORE-V prefix
or are their likely to be non core-v items?
Also - Verilator Model - is about MCU - so I should it be a sub project of MCU or it should be renamed MCU Verilator model or something...
somebody needs to take a clean look and use a holistic naming convention...
[but it is great all these things are in this place]
I think some of the entries in https://github.com/openhwgroup/core-v-docs/tree/master/program/Project%20Descriptions%20and%20Plans should be renamed.
It really is about consistency.
For example some paths have different styles of naming...:
CORE-V CVA5, CORE-V-MCU SoC
and then we have
CVA6, SDK
which don't have context... surely the CVA6 should be CORE-V CVA6 etc or is it not a CORE-V?
or in fact if this whole tree is under core-v-docs - do any need the CORE-V prefix
or are their likely to be non core-v items?
Also - Verilator Model - is about MCU - so I should it be a sub project of MCU or it should be renamed MCU Verilator model or something...
somebody needs to take a clean look and use a holistic naming convention...
[but it is great all these things are in this place]