Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> writes:
> On 2/19/19 2:41 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 2/18/19 1:56 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>>> flash.h's incomplete struct pflash_t is completed both in
>>>> pflash_cfi01.c and in pflash_cfi02.c. The complete types are
>>>> incompatible. This can hide type errors, such as passing a pflash_t
>>>> created with pflash_cfi02_register() to pflash_cfi01_get_memory().
>>>>
>>>> Furthermore, POSIX reserves typedef names ending with _t.
>
> Worth adding in CODING_STYLE 'Naming' section :)
>
>>>>
>>>> Rename the two structs to PFlashCFI01 and PFlashCFI02.
>>>
>>> Why not ParallelFlashCFIxx?
>>
>> Feels a bit long, and we abbreviate to pflash pretty consistently. That
>> said, I'm not particularly enamored with my choice of name :)
>>
>>> Ideally ParallelFlashCFI would be an InterfaceInfo...
>>
>> You mean TYPE_CFI_PFLASH0{1,2} should be children of an abstract parent?
>
> I'd use "TYPE_PFLASH_CFI0[12]".
That's a separate renaming patch. It could go right before PATCH 03.
Worthwhile?
[...]
