From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pa0-x235.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c03::235]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1ZWvwn-0001aT-52 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 02 Sep 2015 00:30:43 +0000 Received: by paap5 with SMTP id p5so4714759paa.0 for ; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 17:30:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 17:30:17 -0700 From: Brian Norris To: Marek Vasut Cc: Jonas Gorski , MTD Maling List Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: spi-nor: Decouple SPI NOR's device_node from controller device Message-ID: <20150902003017.GN81844@google.com> References: <1440148160-14355-1-git-send-email-marex@denx.de> <201508212034.50804.marex@denx.de> <201508212316.21111.marex@denx.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201508212316.21111.marex@denx.de> List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:16:21PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 10:49:46 PM, Jonas Gorski wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 04:15:11 PM, Jonas Gorski wrote: > > >> > This patch is inspired by 5844feeaa4154d1c46d3462c7a4653d22356d8b4 > > >> > mtd: nand: add common DT init code > > >> > > >> I know that this commit named it dn for nand, but IMHO "dn" isn't a > > >> very readable member name, so I would suggest using something with > > >> "node" in it (just using of_node as well seems to be common). I see no > > >> place where the name length might become an issue. > > > > > > I thought .dn was supposed to be abbrev for device_node ;-) > > > > Sure, if you know what it is supposed to stand for it is obvious ;-). > > And from a "stylistic" point of view, struct spi_nor has members > > called page_size, flash_read or cmd_buf and not ps, fr, or cb so using > > dn instead of e.g. dev_node seems a bit odd. > > On the other hand, the .dn is consistent across the MTD subsystem. > I don't have a strong prefference though. I just stuck in nand_chip::dn since we needed something, and because I've seen it used as a function parameter name and a local variable name all over the place, enough that it just seemed natural. But a field name is probably a bit more important. I'd be OK with making the "standard" a bit more verbose, and maybe even changing the one in struct nand_chip. How about: flash_node <-- this one leaves room for a controller node, if we eventually need it device_node dev_node of_node <-- this one is commonly used, but mostly out of legacy reasons. We're not really dealing with Open Firmware ? Pick one and run with it. Brian