Potential namespace problem for 'struct flash_platfrom_data'

[grant.likely@secretlab.ca (Grant Likely)]

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 2:35 PM, H Hartley Sweeten
<hartleys@visionengravers.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 29, 2010 1:20 PM, Russell King wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 03:06:37PM -0500, H Hartley Sweeten wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> I was looking at an issue with a spi flash device and noticed a
>>> potential namespace problem.
>>>
>>> arch/arm/include/asm/mach/flash.h has this:
>>>
>>> struct flash_platform_data {
>>> ? ? ?const char ? ? ?*map_name;
>>> ? ? ?const char ? ? ?*name;
>>> ? ? ?unsigned int ? ?width;
>>> ? ? ?int ? ? ? ? ? ? (*init)(void);
>>> ? ? ?void ? ? ? ? ? ?(*exit)(void);
>>> ? ? ?void ? ? ? ? ? ?(*set_vpp)(int on);
>>> ? ? ?void ? ? ? ? ? ?(*mmcontrol)(struct mtd_info *mtd, int sync_read);
>>> ? ? ?struct mtd_partition *parts;
>>> ? ? ?unsigned int ? ?nr_parts;
>>> };
>>>
>>> and include/linux/spi/flash.h has this:
>>>
>>> struct flash_platform_data {
>>> ? ? ?char ? ? ? ? ? ?*name;
>>> ? ? ?struct mtd_partition *parts;
>>> ? ? ?unsigned int ? ?nr_parts;
>>>
>>> ? ? ?char ? ? ? ? ? ?*type;
>>>
>>> ? ? ?/* we'll likely add more ... use JEDEC IDs, etc */
>>> };
>>>
>>> Should anything be done?
>>
>> How about unifying them both?
>
> That would make sense. ?But the include location would be strange.
>
> The <asm/mach/flash.h> file is used by various arch/arm/mach-* files and in a
> couple of drivers/mtd/maps/*.c files.
>
> The <linux/spi/flash.h> file is also used by various arch/arm/mach-* files as
> well as some arch/blackfin and arch/mips files. ?It's also used by some
> drivers in drivers/mtd/devices and by drivers/spi/spi_butterfly.c.
>
> Because of the multi architecture use, the unifying should be done in the
> include/linux/spi/flash.h file. ?But this include in the various platform
> init's might seem "strange" since the flash is not "spi".
>
> I guess the other option would be to rename the spi version to something like:
>
> struct spi_flash_data {
> ? ? ? ?...
> };
>
> Any comments from the mtd people?

Or just move the definition to an mtd include file.  Renaming the
structure probably isn't worth the effort.

g.