linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] ACPI / PMIC: Add byt prefix to Crystal Cove PMIC OpRegion driver

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]

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