From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] usb: rename 'phy' field of 'struct usb_hcd' to 'transceiver' Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 09:31:06 -0600 Message-ID: <534567BA.5030208@wwwdotorg.org> References: <201404091757.16574.sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from avon.wwwdotorg.org ([70.85.31.133]:45185 "EHLO avon.wwwdotorg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932908AbaDIPbM (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Apr 2014 11:31:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: <201404091757.16574.sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Sergei Shtylyov , gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org Cc: Peter.Chen@freescale.com, stern@rowland.harvard.edu, thierry.reding@gmail.com, balbi@ti.com, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, magnus.damm@gmail.com On 04/09/2014 07:57 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > Return to the 'phy' field of 'struct usb_hcd' its historic name 'transceiver'. > This is in preparation to adding the generic PHY support. Surely if the correct term is transceiver, we should be adding generic transceiver support not generic PHY support? To be honest, this rename feels like churn, especially since the APIs and DT bindings all still include the work phy so now everything will be inconsistent. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 15:31:06 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] usb: rename 'phy' field of 'struct usb_hcd' to 'transceiver' Message-Id: <534567BA.5030208@wwwdotorg.org> List-Id: References: <201404091757.16574.sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com> In-Reply-To: <201404091757.16574.sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Sergei Shtylyov , gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org Cc: Peter.Chen@freescale.com, stern@rowland.harvard.edu, thierry.reding@gmail.com, balbi@ti.com, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, magnus.damm@gmail.com On 04/09/2014 07:57 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > Return to the 'phy' field of 'struct usb_hcd' its historic name 'transceiver'. > This is in preparation to adding the generic PHY support. Surely if the correct term is transceiver, we should be adding generic transceiver support not generic PHY support? To be honest, this rename feels like churn, especially since the APIs and DT bindings all still include the work phy so now everything will be inconsistent.