[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a4bfad9d-b9df-28a5-6bee-5cbbca4dd23f@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2023 12:07:03 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Shradha Todi <shradha.t@...sung.com>, lpieralisi@...nel.org,
kw@...ux.com, robh@...nel.org, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, alim.akhtar@...sung.com,
jingoohan1@...il.com, Sergey.Semin@...kalelectronics.ru,
lukas.bulwahn@...il.com, hongxing.zhu@....com, tglx@...utronix.de,
m.szyprowski@...sung.com, jh80.chung@...sung.co,
pankaj.dubey@...sung.com
Cc: linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/16] PCI: samsung: Rename exynos_pcie to samsung_pcie
On 14/02/2023 13:13, Shradha Todi wrote:
> The platform specific structure being used is named
> exynos_pcie. Changing it to samsung_pcie for making it
> generic.
>
> Suggested-by: Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey@...sung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Shradha Todi <shradha.t@...sung.com>
> ---
> drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-samsung.c | 190 +++++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 95 insertions(+), 95 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-samsung.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-samsung.c
> index d5adf1017a05..be0177fcd763 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-samsung.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-samsung.c
> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
>
> #include "pcie-designware.h"
>
> -#define to_exynos_pcie(x) dev_get_drvdata((x)->dev)
> +#define to_samsung_pcie(x) dev_get_drvdata((x)->dev)
>
> /* PCIe APPL registers */
> #define EXYNOS_PCIE_IRQ_PULSE 0x000
> @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@
> #define EXYNOS_PCIE_APPL_SLV_ARMISC 0x120
> #define EXYNOS_PCIE_APPL_SLV_DBI_ENABLE BIT(21)
>
> -struct exynos_pcie {
> +struct samsung_pcie {
No, I don't see benefit of this at all. How we call stuff inside driver
is not related whether this is for Tesla or Exynos. We could even call
it "pony". :) Thus renamings just to support new variant of Samsung
device is not a good reason.
Unless all of the old "exynos" names will be soon needed for some
exynos-specific variants?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists