Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] mtd: nand: raw: prefix conflicting names with nandc instead of nand

[Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 14:08:02 +0100
Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 01/11/2017 01:39 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 13:09:09 +0100
> > Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> On 01/11/2017 08:46 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote:  
> >>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 20:08:23 +0100
> >>> Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> 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 <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>      
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.
> 

You mean s/nandc/nandchip/, right? I'm fine with that.