[Qemu-devel] [RFC] s/qemu_devtree/qemu_fdt

2013-07-11 Thread Peter Crosthwaite 
Hi All,

Any objections to a tree wide:

s/qemu_devtree/qemu_fdt

FWIU, the qemu_ prefix is supposed to indicate a wrapping of an API,
in this case that API clearly being fdt_ not devtree_. It buys
back a previous 4 chars, in line length, with line length being an
obstacle to adding _nofail versions of the APIs as we should.

Regards.
Peter

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] s/qemu_devtree/qemu_fdt

2013-07-11 Thread Alexander Graf 

On 11.07.2013, at 09:56, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:

 Hi All,
 
 Any objections to a tree wide:
 
 s/qemu_devtree/qemu_fdt
 
 FWIU, the qemu_ prefix is supposed to indicate a wrapping of an API,
 in this case that API clearly being fdt_ not devtree_. It buys
 back a previous 4 chars, in line length, with line length being an
 obstacle to adding _nofail versions of the APIs as we should.

Works for me.


Alex

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] s/qemu_devtree/qemu_fdt

2013-07-11 Thread Peter Maydell 
On 11 July 2013 08:56, Peter Crosthwaite peter.crosthwa...@xilinx.com wrote:
 Hi All,

 Any objections to a tree wide:

 s/qemu_devtree/qemu_fdt

No objection from me...

 FWIU, the qemu_ prefix is supposed to indicate a wrapping of an API,
 in this case that API clearly being fdt_ not devtree_. It buys
 back a previous 4 chars, in line length, with line length being an
 obstacle to adding _nofail versions of the APIs as we should.

...and I'd definitely like to see a cleanup of our error handling
in these wrapper functions (I guess we should use Error**?)

thanks
-- PMM