On 04/09/2014 10:27 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > Hello. > > On 04/09/2014 07:31 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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
