[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87h947blya.fsf@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 13:25:17 +0200
From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
To: Noralf Trønnes <noralf@...nnes.org>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Cc: thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] drm/tinydrm: Add MIPI DBI support
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017, Noralf Trønnes <noralf@...nnes.org> wrote:
> +static bool mipi_dbi_command_is_read(struct mipi_dbi *mipi, u8 cmd)
Okay this is one giant bikeshedding nitpick, but here goes anyway. Why
do you call MIPI DBI just "mipi", here and all around? Why not
"mipi_dbi" or "dbi"? We never talk about "vesa" displays or use that as
a shorthand when we refer to Display Port either.
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
Powered by blists - more mailing lists