On 01/11/2017 02:14 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote: > 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. >
Yes -- Best regards, Marek Vasut
