[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160120141151.GA626@airbook.eia.lan>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 15:11:51 +0100
From: Kurt Van Dijck <dev.kurt@...dijck-laurijssen.be>
To: Michael Grzeschik <m.grzeschik@...gutronix.de>
Cc: mkl@...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
> 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.
Kind regards,
Kurt
Powered by blists - more mailing lists