From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from buildserver.ru.mvista.com (unknown [85.21.88.6]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C6BDDDE01 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 04:23:06 +1100 (EST) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:27:58 +0300 From: Anton Vorontsov To: Sergei Shtylyov Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] [POWERPC] MPC8349E-mITX: introduce localbus and pata nodes Message-ID: <20071127172758.GA15429@localhost.localdomain> References: <20071127153708.GA12490@localhost.localdomain> <20071127153940.GC14183@localhost.localdomain> <474C3C79.5060908@ru.mvista.com> <20071127164101.GA14790@localhost.localdomain> <474C49D5.2000206@ru.mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 In-Reply-To: <474C49D5.2000206@ru.mvista.com> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Reply-To: avorontsov@ru.mvista.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 07:46:13PM +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: [...] > >>>+ ioport-shift = <1>; > > >> Bleh... that shift again. And this is surely not a good name for a > >>property (where's I/O ports in your case?) -- why not call it "reg-shift" > >>(well, I'd call it "reg-size" or "reg-stride" myself :-)? > > >1. "shift" because pata_platform using that name. I don't see any > > reason to contrive indirections. ioport-shift is what the whole > > Linux kernel using nowadays, and ioport-shift dts property > > anyway Linux-specific. > > It's just a bad name. There's not even I/O ports in this case (and > moreover, the *real* I/O mapped device would always have a shift of 0, I > bet -- larger strides are for memory mapped devices). > > > I'm just following todays' conventions. > > > If you feel really bad about that, I think better to fix that in > > the source of the badness -- pata_platform. It's easy, I can do > > I only feel really bad about the "ioport" part, I can live with "shift" > part. :-) > > > that. Would you ack patch that converts whole pata_platform and > > users? Would Paul ack it? > > I don't understand -- why the property name should duplicate > pata_platform field name? :-O Because: > >1. [...] I don't see any reason to contrive indirections. That is, different names for single thing is worse than single bogus name. > Not really -- "size" just seems better, aesthetically. :-) reg-size will look confusing. Is it ata registers' size? No, can't be. So, what is it? It's stride/shift because of bus, on which ata resides. > >And btw, I can get rid of ioport-shift at all. And do fixups in > >the pata_of_platform driver via .compatible matching. But I don't > >want: it feels bad to list every needs-to-fixup board in the common > >driver. It also feels not so great creating something like > >pata-platform-stride-{1,2,4,...} compatible stuff. Heh. > > I didn't propose neither of that. :-) Yup, that was "by the way"... > All I want is that "ioport-*" be renamed. I give up. The final name is..? I can think out wrong one, so you'd better convoy me on that way. ;-) reg-shift sounds okay? Or reg-stride better? No size, please. Thanks, -- Anton Vorontsov email: cbou@mail.ru backup email: ya-cbou@yandex.ru irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2