[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120308224849.GA32667@kroah.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 14:48:49 -0800
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Roland Stigge <stigge@...com.de>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, w.sang@...gutronix.de,
kevin.wells@....com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
arnd@...db.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] USB: Support for LPC32xx SoC
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 11:44:34PM +0100, Roland Stigge wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 08/03/12 23:22, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > So, should this function just be called something else, for the type of
> > hardware (lpc32xx?), and then do this check within the function?
>
> Right. LPC32xx and PNX4008 seem to share much of the functionality but
> they don't share the bits() part. How about renaming (the static)
>
> pnx4008_set_usb_bits()
> pnx4008_unset_usb_bits()
>
> to
>
> set_usb_bits()
> unset_usb_bits()
>
> and internally doing machine_is_pnx4008() dependent stuff?
>
> Regarding the other pnx4008_*() functions that are shared with lpc32xx,
> they only inherit the name for historical reasons. Which naming scheme
> should apply here if change is due? One common name between those two
> would be "nxp". We could replace everything common between pnx4008 and
> lpc32xx with nxp (including ths driver name) and handle the small
> pnx4008-specific stuff via machine_is_pnx4008().
That sounds more reasonable, right? But do it in at least two patches
to make things obvious as to what is happening.
thanks,
greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists