> -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Brown [mailto:broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 7:13 PM > To: Shilimkar, Santosh > Cc: Premi, Sanjeev; Tony Lindgren; Krishnamoorthy, Balaji T; linux- > omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; khilman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; david-b@xxxxxxxxxxx; > linux-i2c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; sameo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; wim@xxxxxxxxx; > timo.t.kokkonen@xxxxxxxxx; ben-linux@xxxxxxxxx; lrg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Nayak, > Rajendra > Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 4/4] OMAP4: PMIC: Update TWL mfd driver to > create twl6030 regulators > > On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 06:56:13PM +0530, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote: > > > > > > is_class_twl4030() feels like it should have better namespacing, > > > though > > > > > having the part name in there means it's not actually an issue. > > > > > How about twl_is_4030()? > > > > The idea was to have a class of twl4030 IC's type IC's. There are many > of > > > them with just different name (TPS *) > > > ... twl_class_is_4030().... What you say ? > > > > Can I suggest: pmic_class_is_xxx() ? > > > Even better > > That feels like it's got a more global namespace than it ought - this is > really only for this class of chip. It's also got a bit of an > assumption that there's only one PMIC in the system which isn't always > the case. Do you have boards / use cases where more than one PM IC would be used _and_ it will use the same driver ? Regards, Santosh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
