[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <569F99AE.6080200@pengutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 15:29:02 +0100
From: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
To: Michael Grzeschik <m.grzeschik@...gutronix.de>, wg@...ndegger.com,
linux-can@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] can: c_can: add xceiver enable/disable support
On 01/20/2016 03:11 PM, Kurt Van Dijck wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/c_can/c_can.c b/drivers/net/can/c_can/c_can.c
>> index f91b094..0723aeb 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/can/c_can/c_can.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/can/c_can/c_can.c
>> @@ -1263,6 +1271,10 @@ int register_c_can_dev(struct net_device *dev)
>> */
>> pinctrl_pm_select_sleep_state(dev->dev.parent);
>>
>> + priv->reg_xceiver = devm_regulator_get(priv->device, "xceiver");
>
> I assume "xceiver" is the shorter name for "transceiver"?
> In that case, I suggest changing the devicetree label to "transceiver".
> It would become a mess if different drivers use different names.
> I see no real benefit for naming it "xceiver". "trx" is even shorter :-)
> See also http://www.acronymfinder.com/TRX.html
>
> The internals, like variable names, do not really matter here.
>
> I haven't looked at other driver, yet the argument still stands.
The transceiver is named xceiver in all drivers.
Marc
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde |
Industrial Linux Solutions | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 |
Vertretung West/Dortmund | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | http://www.pengutronix.de |
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (456 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists