Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] mtd: nand: raw: prefix conflicting names with nandc instead of nand

Marek Vasut
2017-01-11T13:22:02Z

On 01/11/2017 02:14 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 14:08:02 +0100
> Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 01/11/2017 01:39 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 13:09:09 +0100
>>> Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 01/11/2017 08:46 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 20:08:23 +0100
>>>>> Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/21/2016 01:45 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>>>>>>> Some raw NAND function names conflict with names defined in nand.h.
>>>>>>> Prefix all those functions with nandc (for nand chip) instead of nand so
>>>>>>> we can include nand.h from rawnand.h
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nit, nand and nandc is quite confusing, why not call it nand_chip in full?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed, the name is confusing as hell, I just tried to keep it
>>>>> short but that's probably not a good idea.
>>>>> Maybe I should just prefix/suffix the new functions with nanddev instead
>>>>> of changing the existing ones. What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> That'd be less intrusive, but tbh, if the name is descriptive enough, I
>>>> don't care either way. What does 'nanddev' imply though ? NAND device as
>>>> in physical device or chip or just a kernel device object ? :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Physical device, but it's also exposed as a kernel dev object by the
>>> MTD layer.
>>
>> So I guess nandchip if it's supposed to be physical device then.
>>
>
> You mean s/nandc/nandchip/, right? I'm fine with that.
>

Yes

--
Best regards,
Marek Vasut