Hi Laurent. > > > > Please read the cover letter, it explains why it's done this way. The > > whole point of this patchset is to merge DSI and DBI frameworks in a > > way that can be maintained. > > I think this proves the point that the proposed naming is confusing. At > least a rename would be required. Do you have any inputs on the amount of rename we are looking into. Is this a simple s/struct mipi_dsi_device/struct mipi_dxi_device/ or something more? We should script the rename as it will tocuh a lot of files, and without a script we would chase this. But once it is scripted it would be trivial to perform. I did not look at this enough, but I had an idea that we would have do to a s/dsi/dxi/ in a lot of places. (dxi is my best proposal at the moment for something covering both dsi and dbi). PS. I am travelling for a few days, so do not expect quick responses. Sam
