Re: [PATCH 02/10] battery: Implement Generic device battery

[Chen Ganir <chen.ganir@ti.com>]

Johan,

On 09/12/2012 11:45 AM, Johan Hedberg wrote:
> Hi Chen,
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012, Chen Ganir wrote:
>>> Since this symbol is being exported, shouldn't it be prefixed with
>>> btd_ as well?
>>>
>> I will rename it to struct btd_battery. Is that ok ?
>
> Yes.
>
Thanks.

>>
>>>> +typedef void (*RefreshBattFunc) (struct device_battery *batt);
>>>
>>> I don't think we use CamelCase for anything other than D-Bus method names.
>>>
>> We use it in gattrib.h for function pointers. What is the correct
>> convention for function pointers ? same as in adapter_ops ?
>>
>>>> +
>>>> +typedef enum {
>>>> +       BATTERY_OPT_INVALID = 0,
>>>> +       BATTERY_OPT_LEVEL,
>>>> +       BATTERY_OPT_REFRESH_FUNC,
>>>> +} BatteryOption;
>>>
>>> Fix CamelCase usage here and on uses of this type as well.
>>>
>> btio.h also uses this convention. What should be the correct convention ?
>
> Both BtIO and GAttrib intend to mimic GLib-like libraries where this is
> the convention. The plan is not to let this spread to the entire code
> base (particularly with the likely move to libell in the long run), so
> please don't use CamelCase.
>
Ok. So for the battery options i'll simply change it to battery_option. 
What about the convention for defining a function pointer ?


> Johan
>


-- 
BR,
Chen Ganir
Texas Instruments