Re: [RFC][PATCH 03/10] bcma: add embedded bus

[Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com>]

W dniu 6 czerwca 2011 12:55 użytkownik Arend van Spriel
<arend@broadcom.com> napisał:
> On 06/06/2011 12:51 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>
>> W dniu 6 czerwca 2011 12:32 użytkownik George Kashperko
>> <george@znau.edu.ua>  napisał:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>> Hauke,
>>>>
>>>> My idea for naming schema was to use:
>>>> bcma_host_TYPE_*
>>>>
>>>> Like:
>>>> bcma_host_pci_*
>>>> bcma_host_sdio_*
>>>>
>>>> You are using:
>>>> bcma_host_bcma_*
>>>>
>>>> What do you think about changing this to:
>>>> bcma_host_embedded_*
>>>> or just some:
>>>> bcma_host_emb_*
>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>> Does it make more sense to you? I was trying to keep names in bcma
>>>> really clear, so every first-time-reader can see differences between
>>>> hosts, host and driver, etc.
>>>
>>> how about bcma_host_soc ?
>>
>> We get then inconsistency with "BCMA_HOSTTYPE_EMBEDDED". I'd like to
>> 1) See something like bcma_host_emb...
>> xor
>> 2) Use bcma_host_soc_* and BCMA_HOSTTYPE_SOC
>>
>
> I would go for option 2). It more clearly says what it is. Embedded is a
> broader term. As an example, a handset is an embedded device, but it may use
> BCMA_HOSTTYPE_SDIO.

Good point, agree.

-- 
Rafał