From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 16:48:21 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] usb: rename 'phy' field of 'struct usb_hcd' to 'transceiver' Message-Id: <534579D5.10306@wwwdotorg.org> List-Id: References: <201404091757.16574.sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com> <534567BA.5030208@wwwdotorg.org> <534574FB.7060901@cogentembedded.com> In-Reply-To: <534574FB.7060901@cogentembedded.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Sergei Shtylyov , gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org Cc: Peter.Chen@freescale.com, stern@rowland.harvard.edu, thierry.reding@gmail.com, balbi@ti.com, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, magnus.damm@gmail.com On 04/09/2014 10:27 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > Hello. > > On 04/09/2014 07:31 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: > >>> Return to the 'phy' field of 'struct usb_hcd' its historic name >>> 'transceiver'. >>> This is in preparation to adding the generic PHY support. > >> Surely if the correct term is transceiver, we should be adding generic >> transceiver support not generic PHY support? To be honest, this rename >> feels like churn, especially since the APIs and DT bindings all still >> include the work phy so now everything will be inconsistent. > > How about 'usb_phy'? That certainly would make things more consistent, but I wonder why "usb_phy" is better than "phy" when the code/struct in question is something USB-specific; the "usb_" prefix seems implicit to me due to context.