[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170726200403.GD6873@airbook.vandijck-laurijssen.be>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 22:04:03 +0200
From: Kurt Van Dijck <dev.kurt@...dijck-laurijssen.be>
To: Franklin S Cooper Jr <fcooper@...com>
Cc: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
wg@...ndegger.com, mkl@...gutronix.de, robh+dt@...nel.org,
quentin.schulz@...e-electrons.com, andrew@...n.ch
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] can: dev: Add support for limiting configured bitrate
Hi,
I know my response is late ...
> Hi Oliver
> On 07/20/2017 02:43 AM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> > Hi Franklin,
> >
> > On 07/20/2017 01:36 AM, Franklin S Cooper Jr wrote:
> >
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
> >> +void of_transceiver_is_fixed(struct net_device *dev)
> >> +{
> >
> > (..)
> >
> >> +}
> >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(of_transceiver_is_fixed);
> >> +#endif
> >
> > I'm not sure about the naming here.
> >
> > As this is a CAN transceiver related option it should be named accordingly:
I contest the the name too:
1) the can transceiver isn't fixed at all, it limited to the higher
bitrates.
2) of_can_transceiver_is_fixed suggests to test if a transceiver is
fixed, it does not suggest to load some properties from the device tree.
of_can_load_transceiver looks way more clear to me.
That's my opinion.
The important things, like the contents of the functions, look good.
Kind regards,
Kurt Van Dijck
Powered by blists - more mailing lists