From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Ball Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] mmc: add support of sdhci-pxa driver Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 16:59:05 +0100 Message-ID: <20100926155905.GB19772@void.printf.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from void.printf.net ([89.145.121.20]:58845 "EHLO void.printf.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754448Ab0IZP7I (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Sep 2010 11:59:08 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: Haojian Zhuang Cc: Eric Miao , zhangfei gao , linux-mmc , Wolfram Sang , Saeed Bishara On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 10:45:02PM +0800, Haojian Zhuang wrote: > > I prefer we rename it to something like sdhci-mmp.c and the 'pxa' in the > > source code to 'mmp' to cause less confusion with pxamci.c? > > Maybe sdhci-pxa.c is better. pxamci.c isn't compatible with sdhci, so > it won't make people confusion. The confusion can still happen when people are wondering which driver to build for their SoC. It seems that both names are confusing -- sdhci-mmp would confuse this driver with the one submitted by Saeed Bishara for Dove/MMP, and sdhci-pxa confuses it with pxamci.c. Have you considered sdhci-mmp for Saeed's driver, and sdhci-mmp2 for this driver? Or, sdhci-dove and sdhci-mmp2? Perhaps a non-exhaustive distinction is better than an incorrectly generalized one. Thanks, -- Chris Ball One Laptop Per Child