From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Thu, 08 May 2008 05:58:00 +0100 (BST) Received: from [217.169.26.28] ([217.169.26.28]:58851 "EHLO dl5rb.ham-radio-op.net") by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S20023055AbYEHE56 (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 May 2008 05:57:58 +0100 Received: from denk.linux-mips.net (denk.linux-mips.net [127.0.0.1]) by dl5rb.ham-radio-op.net (8.14.1/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m484vgnM003928; Thu, 8 May 2008 05:57:42 +0100 Received: (from ralf@localhost) by denk.linux-mips.net (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id m484vfdM003921; Thu, 8 May 2008 05:57:41 +0100 Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 05:57:41 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: Jean Delvare , Geert Uytterhoeven , Alessandro Zummo , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , rtc-linux@googlegroups.com, i2c@lm-sensors.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Brownell Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/4] RTC: SWARM I2C board initialization Message-ID: <20080508045741.GC25531@linux-mips.org> References: <20080507090514.3a86cf4b@hyperion.delvare> <20080507094343.25f279b9@hyperion.delvare> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 19147 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 10:25:08PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > > > > i2c-foo.c is consistently used for i2c bus driver themselves so far. > > > > It's somewhat confusing to see you name platform code that way. It's > > > > also redundant, given that the file lives in the swarm platform > > > > directory. May I suggest naming this file just > > > > arch/mips/sibyte/swarm/i2c.c? Other architectures (cris, arm) are doing > > > > this already. > I can do that and I have considered it while preparing the change. What > convinced me not to use a name that is already present elsewhere in the > tree is the confusion that it sometimes causes. For example during a > debugging session GDB only reports the file name and not the leading > pathname (and some people do run GDB over the kernel). Of course the > actual file can still be chased with some `find' and `grep' scriptery, but > why to create a problem in the first place? > > I consider repeated file names throughout a tree of a single program a > namespace pollution similar to one with repeated static symbol names. > While syntactically valid and working, it asks for unnecessary confusion. > > This is my point of view, but I can see others may not necessarily follow > it. I am fine with changing the name to i2c.c as it is unlikely I will > run GDB over it. ;-) I've started using unique prefixes such as ip22- or ip27- a while ago. And why not following that example with arch/mips/sibyte/swarm/swarm-i2c.c or similar? Ralf