From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 17:37:09 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] usb: rename 'phy' field of 'struct usb_hcd' to 'transceiver' Message-Id: <53458545.4030907@wwwdotorg.org> List-Id: References: <201404091757.16574.sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com> <534567BA.5030208@wwwdotorg.org> <534574FB.7060901@cogentembedded.com> <534579D5.10306@wwwdotorg.org> <53457B24.1030900@cogentembedded.com> In-Reply-To: <53457B24.1030900@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 10:53 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > 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? Ok, the existing field is being replaced by something? I didn't get that from the patch description; I thought the new name in this patch was going to be it. In that case, a temporary name of usb_phy for the existing field, or adding the new field as gen_phy sound reasonable.