On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 13:09:09 +0100 Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/11/2017 08:46 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 20:08:23 +0100 > > Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 11/21/2016 01:45 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote: > >>> Some raw NAND function names conflict with names defined in nand.h. > >>> Prefix all those functions with nandc (for nand chip) instead of nand so > >>> we can include nand.h from rawnand.h > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezil...@free-electrons.com> > >> > >> Nit, nand and nandc is quite confusing, why not call it nand_chip in full? > >> > > > > Indeed, the name is confusing as hell, I just tried to keep it > > short but that's probably not a good idea. > > Maybe I should just prefix/suffix the new functions with nanddev instead > > of changing the existing ones. What do you think? > > That'd be less intrusive, but tbh, if the name is descriptive enough, I > don't care either way. What does 'nanddev' imply though ? NAND device as > in physical device or chip or just a kernel device object ? :-) > Physical device, but it's also exposed as a kernel dev object by the MTD layer.
