Re: [PATCH 1/4] ARM: OMAP: Rename twl4030* driver files to enable re-use

[Kevin Hilman <khilman@deeprootsystems.com>]

Felipe Balbi <me@felipebalbi.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 07:01:11PM +0530, balajitk@ti.com wrote:
>> From: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>
>> 
>> The upcoming TWL6030 is companion chip for OMAP4 like the current TWL4030
>> for OMAP3. The common modules like RTC, Regulator creates opportunity
>> to re-use the most of the code from twl4030.
>> 
>> This patch renames few common drivers twl4030* files to twl* to enable
>> the code re-use.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@ti.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Balaji T K <balajitk@ti.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-2430sdp.c                |    2 +-
>>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-3430sdp.c                |    2 +-
>>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-ldp.c                    |    2 +-
>>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-omap3beagle.c            |    2 +-
>>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-omap3pandora.c           |    2 +-
>>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-overo.c                  |    2 +-
>>  drivers/gpio/twl4030-gpio.c                        |    2 +-
>>  drivers/mfd/Makefile                               |    2 +-
>>  drivers/mfd/{twl4030-core.c => twl-core.c}         |    8 +++-----
>>  drivers/mfd/twl4030-irq.c                          |    2 +-
>>  drivers/regulator/Makefile                         |    2 +-
>>  .../{twl4030-regulator.c => twl-regulator.c}       |    6 +++---
>>  drivers/rtc/Makefile                               |    2 +-
>>  drivers/rtc/{rtc-twl4030.c => rtc-twl.c}           |    2 +-
>>  drivers/usb/otg/twl4030-usb.c                      |    2 +-
>>  include/linux/i2c/{twl4030.h => twl.h}             |    5 ++++-
>>  sound/soc/codecs/twl4030.c                         |    2 +-
>
> this is kinda useless, we can consider twl6030 as being sw compatible
> (almost) with twl4030. And twl4030 driver already support plenty of
> other devices, just look at drivers/mfd/twl4030-core.c lines 807 - 814.
> We have twl4003, twl5030, tps65950, tps65930 and tps65920.
>
> So IMO, renaming the files is unnecessary.

I support the renaming.

I think the renaming part of a cleanup and a generalization so that
this code can be reused for other parts in the same family, and still
be readable and maintainable.

Yes, we *could* keep the current names, but that's a shortcut that
will lead to code that is more difficult to follow and thus maintain.

Kevin