On 2/21/19 10:15 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> 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?
Definitively not the more important issue with this device =)
