From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergei Shtylyov Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 16:53:56 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] usb: rename 'phy' field of 'struct usb_hcd' to 'transceiver' Message-Id: <53457B24.1030900@cogentembedded.com> List-Id: References: <201404091757.16574.sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com> <534567BA.5030208@wwwdotorg.org> <534574FB.7060901@cogentembedded.com> <534579D5.10306@wwwdotorg.org> In-Reply-To: <534579D5.10306-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Stephen Warren , gregkh-hQyY1W1yCW8ekmWlsbkhG0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, linux-usb-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org Cc: Peter.Chen-KZfg59tc24xl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org, stern-nwvwT67g6+6dFdvTe/nMLpVzexx5G7lz@public.gmane.org, thierry.reding-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, balbi-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org, linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-omap-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-sh-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, magnus.damm-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org On 04/09/2014 08:48 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. I tend to agree. However, I need to name the new field of stype 'struct phy *' somehow... perhaps something like 'gen_phy' for it would do? WBR, Sergei