Hi Andy, On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 04:40:13PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 05:23:56PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >> Follow the pattern, please, I suppose > >> ti_pmic_tps68470.c > > > > This pattern is weird. "ti" in front of the file name is redundant, and in > > very few places the vendor prefix is used anyway. Especially when the chip > > has a proper name --- as this one does. > > > > I assume for the Intel PMICs it could be there for a couple of reasons which > > are > > > > 1) lack of a clearly unique chip ID and > > > > 2) the use of common frameworklet for Intel PMICs. > > > > There are also no other PMIC chips supported currently. > > > > The pmic_tps68470 naming is in line with the GPIO driver (apart from the > > dash / underscore difference). > > Since > > % git ls-files *pmic* > > returns somewhat interesting results, I would even go further and use > > tps68470.c here > > and > > s/ti_pmic/tps6840/g > > inside the file. > > Would it work for you? This is still a different driver from the tps68470 driver which is an MFD driver. For clarity, I'd keep pmic as part of the name (and I'd use tps68470_pmic_ prefix for internal symbols, too). As PMICs are typically linked to the kernel (vs. being modules), there's no issue with the module name. I would suppose few if any PMICs will be compiled as modules in general. It's not a big deal though. I'm fine either way. -- Regards, Sakari Ailus e-mail: sakari.ailus@xxxxxx XMPP: sailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
