On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:29:35PM +0100, Samuel Ortiz wrote: > Hi Tomas, > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 09:17:21PM +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote: > > > > > > > In preparation for the MEI bus code merge, we rename the mei_device > > > structure to mei_host. > > > struct mei_device will be used for devices on the MEI bus in order to > > > follow > > > exisiting driver model implementations practices. > > > > > I'd like to NACK this name, we use 'host' for the host part of the MEI > > protocol, > > > > You can use the mei_controller, mei_adapter, and I'm not sure what else > > can come into mind. > mei_controller sounds good to me. > > > > I prefer not to break the HW spec language. I prefer to leave it > > mei_device as after all it's a device on pci bus it's not a pure host > > controller. > > And call what is on the mei bus mei_cl_dev or mei_app_dev . From the HW > > perspective it actually > > talks to a client/application residing inside MEI device, it is not always > > a physical device like NFC. > > > The bus is not physical neither. It's really items that we add to this bus, > watchdog could be the next candidate for example. > > > Please let's find something that makes both hw and Linux happy > I still believe it makes sense to use mei_device for what we add to the MEI > bus. I'd be fine with mei_bus_device as well, but that would somehow look > a bit awkward. Greg, Arnd, any preference ?
"mei_device" works the best for me. Tomas, what you think of as a "MEI Device" really is a "MEI Controller", it bridges the difference between the PCI bus and your new MEI bus, so you will need to start thinking of these things a bit differently now that you have created your own little virtual bus. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
