On 04/09/2014 09:37 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
No, not replaced. I'm adding the support for generic PHY to the existing USB PHY support. I thought that was clear from the changelog.
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.
OK, I'll respin the patch #2 with 'gen_phy' and remove the patch #1. WBR, Sergei -- 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
