[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3d5bb9c9480092c64c5574b6551e64f1@walle.cc>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 10:58:35 +0100
From: Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
To: Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com
Cc: miquel.raynal@...tlin.com, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, p.yadav@...com, richard@....at,
vigneshr@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 05/14] mtd: spi-nor: xilinx: rename vendor specific
functions and defines
Am 2022-02-15 09:52, schrieb Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com:
> Miquel in To:
>
> On 2/15/22 10:25, Michael Walle wrote:
>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know
>> the content is safe
>>
>> Am 2022-02-10 09:06, schrieb Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com:
>>> On 2/10/22 10:04, Michael Walle wrote:
>>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you
>>>> know
>>>> the content is safe
>>>>
>>>> Am 2022-02-10 04:08, schrieb Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com:
>>>>> On 2/2/22 16:58, Michael Walle wrote:
>>>>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you
>>>>>> know
>>>>>> the content is safe
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Drop the generic spi_nor prefix for all the xilinx functions.
>>>>>
>>>>> mm, no, I would keep the spi_nor prefix because xilinx_sr_ready is
>>>>> too
>>>>> generic and can conflict with methods from other subsystems.
>>>>
>>>> But all the other functions in this file start with xilinx_ ;)
>>>>
>>>> I don't have a strong opinion here, other than it shouldn't
>>>> be called spi_nor_read_blaba() because that looks like a
>>>> standard spi nor function belonging in core.c
>>>>
>>>
>>> then let's prepend all with spi_nor_xilinx_*()?
>>
>> I'm still not sure what to do here. Have a look at all the other
>> vendor modules in spi-nor. they are all prefixed with the vendor
>> name? E.g. there is a sst_write() which is far more likely to
>> cause a conflict. So should we rename all these functions? Or
>> do we just take our chance that it might have a conflict in
>> the future (with an easy fix to rename the function then). TBH
>> I doubt there will be a global symbol "xilinx_read_sr()".
>
> I doubt it will not be a conflict.
>
>>
>> But I care for consistency, so having some named xilinx_, sst_,
>> st_micron_ and some spi_nor_read_xsr sounds and looks awful.
>
> yes, I agree. Take a look on what's happening in NAND. They prepend
> the name with vendor_nand_*(). Or in SPI NAND they use flash family
> names which should be unique. So how about aligning with NAND and
> use vendor_nor_*()?
Sounds good. Regarding the flash family.. take a look at Winbond W25M
which can either be NAND or NOR depending on the size ;)
But the main question was rather whether we rename all the function
names at once or bit by bit. To proceed here with this series, I'd
use the vendor_nor_ prefix for the moved functions (but still keep
the micron_st_ st_micron_ rename patch).
-michael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists