From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kurt Van Dijck Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] can: c_can: add xceiver enable/disable support Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 15:11:51 +0100 Message-ID: <20160120141151.GA626@airbook.eia.lan> References: <1453297443-23279-1-git-send-email-m.grzeschik@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: mkl@pengutronix.de, wg@grandegger.com, linux-can@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@pengutronix.de To: Michael Grzeschik Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1453297443-23279-1-git-send-email-m.grzeschik@pengutronix.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org > diff --git a/drivers/net/can/c_can/c_can.c b/drivers/net/can/c_can/c_can.c > index f91b094..0723aeb 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/can/c_can/c_can.c > +++ b/drivers/net/can/c_can/c_can.c > @@ -1263,6 +1271,10 @@ int register_c_can_dev(struct net_device *dev) > */ > pinctrl_pm_select_sleep_state(dev->dev.parent); > > + priv->reg_xceiver = devm_regulator_get(priv->device, "xceiver"); I assume "xceiver" is the shorter name for "transceiver"? In that case, I suggest changing the devicetree label to "transceiver". It would become a mess if different drivers use different names. I see no real benefit for naming it "xceiver". "trx" is even shorter :-) See also http://www.acronymfinder.com/TRX.html The internals, like variable names, do not really matter here. I haven't looked at other driver, yet the argument still stands. Kind regards, Kurt