From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stanislaw Gruszka Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/17] mt76: rename mt76x2_regs.h Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2018 16:44:54 +0200 Message-ID: <20180825144453.GA14397@redhat.com> References: <1535109321-17126-1-git-send-email-sgruszka@redhat.com> <1535109321-17126-3-git-send-email-sgruszka@redhat.com> <2172355a-0703-e432-96cb-fba2383c3890@nbd.name> <20180825113149.GA13833@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-wireless-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Felix Fietkau Cc: linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Lorenzo Bianconi , linux-mediatek-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org On Sat, Aug 25, 2018 at 01:56:47PM +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote: > >> I think mt76xx_regs.h is named too generic. MT7603, MT7628, MT7615 and > >> all newer chips use a completely different register layout. > >> I'd prefer to stick with mt76x2_regs for now and use it for x0 as well. > > > > I thought about that too, but choose it will be better to have some > > prefix that will indicate the function/structure/header is shared between > > the x0 and x2 drivers to not confuse mt76x2 code that is mt76x2 only > > and one that is shared. > > > > I choose mt76xx name, considered mt76 to be generic prefix shared also > > between old and new chips. But yeah this mt76xx name also "contains" new > > chips. How about mt76old_ or mt76og_ (old generation) ? > I think this looks even more confusing. Also, please keep in mind that > 'old' is relative as well. > How about mt76x02? Ok to me. Stanislaw