Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 05:05:14PM +0100, Maciej Kwapulinski wrote: .... >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/drivers/misc/gna/gna_driver.h >> @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@ >> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */ >> +/* Copyright(c) 2017-2021 Intel Corporation */ >> + >> +#ifndef __GNA_DRIVER_H__ >> +#define __GNA_DRIVER_H__ >> + >> +#include <linux/kernel.h> >> +#include <linux/mutex.h> >> +#include <linux/types.h> >> + >> +#define GNA_DRV_NAME "gna" > > Way too generic, no one knows what "gna" is. > "intel gna" is much more verbose in search engines. As we do not (plan to) have more "gna" drivers, is the following ok?: intel-gna the change would imply the following: prompt$ lspci -s 00:00.3 -vvvv 00:00.3 System peripheral: Intel Corporation Device 3190 (rev 03) Subsystem: Intel Corporation Device 2072 .... Kernel driver in use: intel-gna Kernel modules: gna is it ok? also, how about the interface to library (it's part of one of next patches)?: prompt$ file /dev/gna0 /dev/gna0: character special (235/0) can "gna" stay intact here? I'm pointing this out, because gna exists on the market for a while and changing the above may have some impact we'd like to avoid. > ....
