lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191025093325.GK32742@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 25 Oct 2019 12:33:25 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] ACPI / PMIC: Add byt prefix to Crystal Cove PMIC
 OpRegion driver

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 10:59:06AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> On 25-10-2019 09:41, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 11:38:25PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:

> > I would go with previously established pattern, i.e. intel_pmic_bytcc.c.

> Well that would be consistent with the chtwc for the Whiskey Cove, but
> Crystal Cove related files are shortened to crc in many places already:
> 
> Filenames before this patch:
> drivers/acpi/pmic/intel_pmic_crc.c
> drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
> drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_crc.c
> 
> And to me "cc" stands for the Type-C cc lines, or for Cc: from email,
> so IMHO it is best to stick with crc here.

Okay, let's do an exception here due to the fact the code and name already
exists and spreads enough thru sources.

It means you may use mine tags.

> > I'm wondering shouldn't we rename the PWM and GPIO for the sake of consistency?
> > Yes, if a driver is used on both CHT and BYT, let it provide two names.
> 
> I believe it is fine to keep the blocks which are identical between
> the 2 versions as just "crystal_cove_foo", but renaming them is fine with me
> too, but that follows outside the scope of this series and should be
> done in a follow-up series IMHO.

True.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ