From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753905Ab3BLV3j (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:29:39 -0500 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:14245 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751786Ab3BLV3i (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:29:38 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,652,1355126400"; d="scan'208";a="286358715" Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 22:29:35 +0100 From: Samuel Ortiz To: "Winkler, Tomas" Cc: "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" , "arnd@arndb.de" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [char-misc-next 01/12 v3] mei: Rename mei_device to mei_host Message-ID: <20130212212935.GJ20996@sortiz-mobl> References: <1360694222-27632-1-git-send-email-sameo@linux.intel.com> <1360694222-27632-2-git-send-email-sameo@linux.intel.com> <5B8DA87D05A7694D9FA63FD143655C1B01ECF4E9@HASMSX106.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5B8DA87D05A7694D9FA63FD143655C1B01ECF4E9@HASMSX106.ger.corp.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Tomas, On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 09:17:21PM +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote: > > > > In preparation for the MEI bus code merge, we rename the mei_device > > structure to mei_host. > > struct mei_device will be used for devices on the MEI bus in order to follow > > exisiting driver model implementations practices. > > > I'd like to NACK this name, we use 'host' for the host part of the MEI protocol, > > You can use the mei_controller, mei_adapter, and I'm not sure what else can come into mind. mei_controller sounds good to me. > I prefer not to break the HW spec language. I prefer to leave it mei_device as after all it's a device on pci bus it's not a pure host controller. > And call what is on the mei bus mei_cl_dev or mei_app_dev . From the HW perspective it actually > talks to a client/application residing inside MEI device, it is not always a physical device like NFC. > The bus is not physical neither. It's really items that we add to this bus, watchdog could be the next candidate for example. > Please let's find something that makes both hw and Linux happy I still believe it makes sense to use mei_device for what we add to the MEI bus. I'd be fine with mei_bus_device as well, but that would somehow look a bit awkward. Greg, Arnd, any preference ? >>From the MEI core code readers perspective, this will mostly be transparent as only the technology specific parts of the MEI driver (e.g. nfc.c) will use that mei_device structure. Cheers, Samuel. -- Intel Open Source Technology Centre http://oss.intel.com/