From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergei Shtylyov Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] usb: rename 'phy' field of 'struct usb_hcd' to 'transceiver' Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 21:52:49 +0400 Message-ID: <534588F1.2050406@cogentembedded.com> References: <201404091757.16574.sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com> <534567BA.5030208@wwwdotorg.org> <534574FB.7060901@cogentembedded.com> <534579D5.10306@wwwdotorg.org> <53457B24.1030900@cogentembedded.com> <53458545.4030907@wwwdotorg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <53458545.4030907@wwwdotorg.org> Sender: linux-sh-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Warren , 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 List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On 04/09/2014 09:37 PM, Stephen Warren 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. >>>> How about 'usb_phy'? >>> That certainly would make things more consistent, but I wonder why >>> "usb_phy" is better than "phy" when the code/struct in question is >>> something USB-specific; the "usb_" prefix seems implicit to me due to >>> context. >> I tend to agree. However, I need to name the new field of stype >> 'struct phy *' somehow... perhaps something like 'gen_phy' for it would do? > Ok, the existing field is being replaced by something? I didn't get that No, not replaced. I'm adding the support for generic PHY to the existing USB PHY support. I thought that was clear from the changelog. > from the patch description; I thought the new name in this patch was > going to be it. In that case, a temporary name of usb_phy for the > existing field, or adding the new field as gen_phy sound reasonable. OK, I'll respin the patch #2 with 'gen_phy' and remove the patch #1. WBR, Sergei From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergei Shtylyov Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 17:52:49 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] usb: rename 'phy' field of 'struct usb_hcd' to 'transceiver' Message-Id: <534588F1.2050406@cogentembedded.com> List-Id: References: <201404091757.16574.sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com> <534567BA.5030208@wwwdotorg.org> <534574FB.7060901@cogentembedded.com> <534579D5.10306@wwwdotorg.org> <53457B24.1030900@cogentembedded.com> <53458545.4030907@wwwdotorg.org> In-Reply-To: <53458545.4030907@wwwdotorg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Stephen Warren , 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 09:37 PM, Stephen Warren 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. >>>> How about 'usb_phy'? >>> That certainly would make things more consistent, but I wonder why >>> "usb_phy" is better than "phy" when the code/struct in question is >>> something USB-specific; the "usb_" prefix seems implicit to me due to >>> context. >> I tend to agree. However, I need to name the new field of stype >> 'struct phy *' somehow... perhaps something like 'gen_phy' for it would do? > Ok, the existing field is being replaced by something? I didn't get that No, not replaced. I'm adding the support for generic PHY to the existing USB PHY support. I thought that was clear from the changelog. > from the patch description; I thought the new name in this patch was > going to be it. In that case, a temporary name of usb_phy for the > existing field, or adding the new field as gen_phy sound reasonable. OK, I'll respin the patch #2 with 'gen_phy' and remove the patch #1. WBR, Sergei