From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 18:12:12 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCHv3 3/5] omap3: remove typedefs for configuration
	structs
In-Reply-To: <4A197200.8070102@googlemail.com>
References: <cover.1242716287.git.mludwig@ultratronik.de>
	<042680c935ee2a71d7cd006d3fd5c01e7893b2db.1242716287.git.mludwig@ultratronik.de>
	<20090524154903.GL26561@game.jcrosoft.org>
	<4A197200.8070102@googlemail.com>
Message-ID: <20090524161212.GA27630@game.jcrosoft.org>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

>>>  void beagle_identify(void)
>>>  {
>>> -	gpio_t *gpio6_base = (gpio_t *)OMAP34XX_GPIO6_BASE;
>>> +	struct gpio *gpio6_base = (struct gpio *)OMAP34XX_GPIO6_BASE;
>> please use a namespace name gpio is too much generic
>> and it's the same for the other struct sms, pm etc...
>> omap_ will be better as the omap4 will certanly use the same or near IP
>
> But OMAP4 most probably will not use a file board/omap3/beagle/beagle.c.
>
> And using "omap_" would be wrong if your argument is OMAP4. Then it  
> needs at least to be "omap3_".
>
> And I can't see how a local variable could pollute the namespace, if  
> this is what you mean.
where did I speak about var name?
the stuct name need to be less generic

Best Regards,
J.