Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_*() to dt_*()

[David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>]

On 11/24/2010 06:03 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> There were some murmurings on IRC last week about renaming the of_*()
> routines. I was procrastinating at the time and said I'd have a look at
> it, so here I am.
>
> The thinking is that on many platforms that use the of_() routines
> OpenFirmware is not involved at all, this is true even on many powerpc
> platforms. Also for folks who don't know the OpenFirmware connection it
> reads as "of", as in "a can of worms".
>
> Personally I'm a bit ambivalent about it, the OF name is a bit wrong so
> it would be nice to get rid of, but it's a lot of churn.
>
> So I'm hoping people with either say "YES this is a great idea", or "NO
> this is stupid".
>
> As step one I've just renamed as many routines as I could find to see
> what the resulting patch looks like, so we can quantify the churn. I
> also did device.of_node, which is used quite a bit.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> of ->  dt most places I could think of (done mechanically):
>
[...]
>   drivers/of/address.c                               |  114 ++++++------
>   drivers/of/base.c                                  |   14 +-
>   drivers/of/device.c                                |   36 ++--
>   drivers/of/fdt.c                                   |    4 +-
>   drivers/of/gpio.c                                  |   32 ++--
>   drivers/of/irq.c                                   |    4 +-
>   drivers/of/of_i2c.c                                |   18 +-
>   drivers/of/of_mdio.c                               |   16 +-
>   drivers/of/of_spi.c                                |   12 +-
>   drivers/of/pdt.c                                   |    4 +-
>   drivers/of/platform.c                              |  212 ++++++++++----------

Well, not that I care one way or the other, but for consistency you 
should change all these directory and file names as well.

David Daney