[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f2ac55b6361264a6a4b0dbb1b4af11a6@milecki.pl>
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2023 13:49:49 +0200
From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
To: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
Cc: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Robert Marko <robert.marko@...tura.hr>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
Luka Perkov <luka.perkov@...tura.hr>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@...omium.org>,
Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 5/7] nvmem: core: Rework layouts to become regular
devices
On 2023-10-05 17:59, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> +static struct bus_type nvmem_layout_bus_type = {
> + .name = "nvmem-layouts",
> + .match = nvmem_layout_bus_match,
> +};
> +
> +static struct device nvmem_layout_bus = {
> + .init_name = "nvmem-layouts",
> +};
Nitpicking: would it be more consistent and still make sense to use
singular form "nvmem-layout"?
By looking at my /sys/bus/ I can see there:
1. cpu (not cpus)
2. gpio (not gpios)
3. node (not nodes)
4. nvmem (not nvmems)
etc.
--
Rafał Miłecki
Powered by blists - more mailing lists