In my opinion, this is an exercise in _pedantry_. No one cares as it
will work just the same. Is it really confusing people?

Renaming it pcppc (besides having a lot of p's and c's) is inaccurate:
what about alpha, sparc, ppc and etc. which have "AT-style" (even heard
of "PC-style") parallel ports? These ports are not found exclusively in
"PC's" anymore. Also, are IBM PC's the only real PC's? PC = personal
computer, not x86-based architecture originating from IBM. Macs are
PC's.
It may also cause confusion with pcppi and other pc* devices...or is
this suggestion to get a deceptive sense of naming conformity? 

How about "centronicsppc" or "ieee1284ppc"? Since this IEEE standard
actually governs the parallel port specification as far as signalling,
electrical characterists, and physical connectors, but NOT programming
interface, I would not think so. Centronics actually concerns the DB25
connector and signals, so this isn't 100% either.

Sine the register definitions are actually spelled out in the Microsoft
ECP documentation, why not name it microsoftppc? I doubt that the
original IBM PC actually spelled out anything, so maybe this is the way
to go for NetBSD (it won't be my decision :-).

 --- Toru Nishimura <locore32@gaea.ocn.ne.jp> wrote: > Ben Harris
<bjh21@NetBSD.org> writes:: The atppc(4) driver is
> misnamed, since the
> interface it drives was: introduced for the IBM PC, not the PC/AT.  I
> think it should be
> renamed to: pcppc(4) now, before too many people get it stuck in
> their kernel:
> configuration files.
> M. Warner Losh says;
> > There's also a parallel port controller in the NEC PC-9801 and
> PC-9821> series of
> computers.  Would you call that pc98ppc or necppc?

Do they work differently as far as programming the device? 

> If it would make sense in practical reason. I've been a computer
> programmer whenthe
> original PC9801 was brought into business market.  It thrived wildly
> once agoand there are
> plenty of model variations almost beyond recognition.  There
> werehandful (literally)
> publications named 'PC98 encyclopedia' things simply becauseserious
> programmers needed to
> dig out incompatibilities to affect their programs.That's simply
> because the entire PC98
> product line was a collection ofless-coordinated multiple designs
> made by independent
> works (works in Japaneseelectronics giants behaves like as sibling
> companies) It is the
> re-implementationof PC-compatibles with NEC own parts, in most cases
> with enhancements and
> fixturesfound in ugly PC designs.  By definition it's looks-like,
> works-like but
> incompatiblewith PC.  I guess the company has spent enormous amount
> of engineering
> resource tomake them useful for MS-DOS/Windows market for decades. 
> But the days were
> over.
> > But having said that, I'm easy either way.
> I'm OK to change atppc with pcppc.
> Toru Nishimura/ALKYL Technology