[U-Boot] [PATCH v8 14/14] sf: Rename sf_ops.c to spi-flash.c

Jagan Teki
2015-12-11T07:02:20Z

On Friday 11 December 2015 12:21 PM, Bin Meng wrote:
> Hi Jagan,
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Jagan Teki <jteki@openedev.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Friday 11 December 2015 11:53 AM, Bin Meng wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Jagan,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Jagan Teki <jteki@openedev.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10 December 2015 at 07:01, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6 December 2015 at 11:34, Jagan Teki <jteki@openedev.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since all spi-flash core operations are moved into
>>>>>>> sf_ops.c then it's better to renamed as spi-flash.c
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jagan Teki <jteki@openedev.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> drivers/mtd/spi/Makefile | 2 +-
>>>>>>> drivers/mtd/spi/{sf_ops.c => spi-flash.c} | 7 ++++---
>>>>>>> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>>>> rename drivers/mtd/spi/{sf_ops.c => spi-flash.c} (99%)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (but I suggest spi_flash.c is better as it fits with the other files)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed. spi_flash.c makes more sense. So far it looks that only driver
>>>>> model uclass driver is using - in the file name, others are using _.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Clear, but this file will handle common spi-flash core functionalities
>>>> it shouldn't be dm even now or later and more over underlying sf_probe
>>>> which is calling this through spi_flash_scan has a driver model on it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean. But my comment is to
>>> rename sf_ops.c to sf_flash.c, not sf-flash.c.
>>
>>
>>
>> spi-flash.c (the function spi_flash_scan from sf_probe, so this never be a
>> dm driver and it handles all core functionalities
>> ======================================================================
>> sf_probe.c (this has dm support)
>> =================================
>>
>> Since you're saying dm has - and ie the reason I'm saying spi-flash.c should
>> technically a dm supported core.
>>
>
> I was saying it looks to me that only dm uclass driver is allowed to
> have -, like sf-uclass.c or pci-uclass.c. Other files we should use _.

sf_probe.c is a dm driver - agree?
If ie the case probably this is the first file has a code moved from dm
driver into different file which is spi-flash in this case.

thanks!
--
Jagan