[U-Boot] [PATCH V3 2/5] mv_egiga: support SoCs other than kirkwood

[Albert ARIBAUD <albert.aribaud@free.fr>]

Le 12/07/2010 08:53, Prafulla Wadaskar a ?crit :
>>>> -	struct kwgbe_device *dkwgbe = to_dkwgbe(dev);
>>>> -	struct kwgbe_registers *regs = dkwgbe->regs;
>>>> +	struct mv_egiga_device *dmvegiga = to_mv_egiga(dev);
>>>> +	struct mv_egiga_registers *regs = dmvegiga->regs;
>>> I suggest to keep name as mvgbe here instead of mv_egiga, 3
>> additional chars, increases overall code size
>> huh?  The name is consistent with the rest of his work, and *if* the
>> code really increases in size, I can't imagine that 3 chars really
>> matters...
>
> That's true.
> But if we can do it why to avoid it? again it helps to keep same indentation (keeping them below 80char size)

I don't think I changed indentation here, and the issue is about line 
lengths, right?

Initially I chose mv egiga because the file names used egiga while the 
code used gbe, and I wanted clarity, so I decided to keep only one of 
egiga and gbe. Now which one I should keep is not really important to 
me, and a Google search for marvell egiga vs marvell gbe indicates gbe 
appears much more frequently, so someone looking into this will probably 
know "GbE" more than "egiga".

I suggest that:

- I switch the file names from mv_egiga to "mvgbe" (to be consistent 
with Prafulla's comment on mv_sata becoming mvsata), and

- I replace mv_egiga/MV_EGIGA symbols with mvgbe/MVGBE.

That will retain (as much) clarity and uniformity (as egiga does), which 
is what I think Ben is looking for, and it'll keep name length at a 
minimum, which should satisfy Prafulla.

Ben, Prafulla (and others as well, of course), do you agree?

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.