[U-Boot] [PATCH v8 14/14] sf: Rename sf_ops.c to spi-flash.c

[Jagan Teki <jteki@openedev.com>]

On Friday 11 December 2015 11:53 AM, Bin Meng wrote:
> Hi Jagan,
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Jagan Teki <jteki@openedev.com> wrote:
>> On 10 December 2015 at 07:01, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>> On 6 December 2015 at 11:34, Jagan Teki <jteki@openedev.com> wrote:
>>>>> Since all spi-flash core operations are moved into
>>>>> sf_ops.c then it's better to renamed as spi-flash.c
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jagan Teki <jteki@openedev.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>   drivers/mtd/spi/Makefile                  | 2 +-
>>>>>   drivers/mtd/spi/{sf_ops.c => spi-flash.c} | 7 ++++---
>>>>>   2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>>   rename drivers/mtd/spi/{sf_ops.c => spi-flash.c} (99%)
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>>>>
>>>> (but I suggest spi_flash.c is better as it fits with the other files)
>>>
>>> Agreed. spi_flash.c makes more sense. So far it looks that only driver
>>> model uclass driver is using - in the file name, others are using _.
>>
>> Clear, but this file will handle common spi-flash core functionalities
>> it shouldn't be dm even now or later and more over underlying sf_probe
>> which is calling this through spi_flash_scan has a driver model on it.
>
> Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean. But my comment is to
> rename sf_ops.c to sf_flash.c, not sf-flash.c.


spi-flash.c (the function spi_flash_scan from sf_probe, so this never be 
a dm driver and it handles all core functionalities
======================================================================
sf_probe.c (this has dm support)
=================================

Since you're saying dm has - and ie the reason I'm saying spi-flash.c 
should technically a dm supported core.

Let me know if you're not clear though.

thanks!
-- 
Jagan