On 04/09/2014 10:53 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > On 04/09/2014 08:48 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: > >>>>> Return to the 'phy' field of 'struct usb_hcd' its historic name >>>>> 'transceiver'. >>>>> This is in preparation to adding the generic PHY support. > >>>> Surely if the correct term is transceiver, we should be adding generic >>>> transceiver support not generic PHY support? To be honest, this rename >>>> feels like churn, especially since the APIs and DT bindings all still >>>> include the work phy so now everything will be inconsistent. > >>> How about 'usb_phy'? > >> That certainly would make things more consistent, but I wonder why >> "usb_phy" is better than "phy" when the code/struct in question is >> something USB-specific; the "usb_" prefix seems implicit to me due to >> context. > > I tend to agree. However, I need to name the new field of stype > 'struct phy *' somehow... perhaps something like 'gen_phy' for it would do?
Ok, the existing field is being replaced by something? I didn't get that from the patch description; I thought the new name in this patch was going to be it. In that case, a temporary name of usb_phy for the existing field, or adding the new field as gen_phy sound reasonable. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
