On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 14:08:02 +0100 Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. > You mean s/nandc/nandchip/, right? I'm fine with that.
