From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jonathan Woithe Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] platform/x86: fujitsu-laptop: shorten names of acpi_handle fields Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 22:49:26 +0930 Message-ID: <20170501131926.GC25546@marvin.atrad.com.au> References: <20170424133334.7064-1-kernel@kempniu.pl> <20170424133334.7064-3-kernel@kempniu.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from server.atrad.com.au ([150.101.241.2]:59044 "EHLO server.atrad.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1165177AbdEANUA (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 May 2017 09:20:00 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170424133334.7064-3-kernel@kempniu.pl> Sender: platform-driver-x86-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Micha?? K??pie?? Cc: Darren Hart , Andy Shevchenko , platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 03:33:26PM +0200, Micha?? K??pie?? wrote: > As both struct fujitsu_bl and struct fujitsu_laptop represent data > associated with ACPI devices, drop the "acpi_" prefix from the names of > the relevant fields of these structures to save some horizontal space. > > Signed-off-by: Micha?? K??pie?? > --- > drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c | 23 +++++++++++------------ > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c b/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c > index 3f232967af04..3695e8075aa6 100644 > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c > @@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ > > /* Device controlling the backlight and associated keys */ > struct fujitsu_bl { > - acpi_handle acpi_handle; > + acpi_handle handle; I must admit I'm not entirely convinced about this change. "handle" to me is very generic and it's not immediately clear from the source usage what it might be a handle of. A later patch in the series introduces an additional handle which includes a suitable suffix, which leaves us with generic and specific handles within the code. Although it consumes an additional 5 characters, my feeling is that the additional clarification is worth it. Regards jonathan