Hi, On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Premi, Sanjeev <premi@xxxxxx> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: linux-omap-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> [mailto:linux-omap-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of K, Mythri P >> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 1:47 PM >> To: linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Valkeinen, Tomi >> Cc: K, Mythri P >> Subject: [PATCH 5/8] OMAP4: DSS2: HDMI: Split the HDMI driver >> to DSS and IP >> >> Splitting HDMI IP dependent IP configuring code from HDMI DSS >> dependent code and >> moving to a new IP file. >> >> Signed-off-by: Mythri P K <mythripk@xxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/video/omap2/dss/Makefile | 1 + >> drivers/video/omap2/dss/hdmi.c | 751 >> ------------------- >> drivers/video/omap2/dss/hdmi_ti_4xxx_ip.c | 781 >> ++++++++++++++++++++ >> .../video/omap2/dss/{hdmi.h => hdmi_ti_4xxx_ip.h} | 9 +- >> include/video/hdmi_ti_4xxx_ip.h | 10 + > > [sp] Is it okay to have 2 files by same name in two dirs? > 'include/video' and 'drivers/.../omap2/dss'. > Compiler won't complain, but my comments is more from readability. > There has to be something characteristically different in these > headers - maybe this should reflect in the names as well. > I have seen some instances of such nomenclature , where one is generic to be used by other drivers across and is located located in /include/video and other in local folder restricted to that file. Do anyone else see an issue ? > ~sanjeev > -- Thanks and regards, Mythri. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
