On 01/11/2017 01:39 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote: > 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.
So I guess nandchip if it's supposed to be physical device then. -- Best regards, Marek Vasut
