From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wm0-x244.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c09::244]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.87 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1cRIdr-0006m5-5W for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 13:08:40 +0000 Received: by mail-wm0-x244.google.com with SMTP id r144so27867034wme.0 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 05:08:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] mtd: nand: raw: prefix conflicting names with nandc instead of nand To: Boris Brezillon References: <1479732328-18363-1-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> <1479732328-18363-5-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> <8fb86bb7-425a-3897-2d1d-7277e94918ec@gmail.com> <20170111084613.69e80a40@bbrezillon> <47760b42-607c-bcae-18b9-3ede5773125a@gmail.com> <20170111133933.0752c003@bbrezillon> Cc: Richard Weinberger , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Peter Pan , David Woodhouse , Brian Norris , Cyrille Pitchen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ezequiel Garcia , Kelvin Cheung From: Marek Vasut Message-ID: <71d834f0-ff23-4a0d-2554-83ebd4855999@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 14:08:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170111133933.0752c003@bbrezillon> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 01/11/2017 01:39 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 13:09:09 +0100 > Marek Vasut wrote: > >> On 01/11/2017 08:46 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote: >>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 20:08:23 +0100 >>> Marek Vasut 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 >>>> >>>> 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. -- Best regards, Marek Vasut