On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 1:24 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 1:20 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 10:23 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 12:33 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > @@ -909,8 +881,7 @@ struct pci_bus *acpi_pci_root_create(struct acpi_pci_root *root,
> > > > int ret, busnum = root->secondary.start;
> > > > struct acpi_device *device = root->device;
> > > > int node = acpi_get_node(device->handle);
> > > > - struct pci_bus *bus;
> > > > - struct pci_host_bridge *host_bridge;
> > > > + struct pci_host_bridge *bridge;
> > >
> > > Why "bridge" and not "host" or even something to stand for "root complex"?
> > >
> > > Or maybe it can still be "host_bridge"?
> >
> > I did this for consistency with the naming in drivers/pci/probe.c,
> > which always declares the local variable as 'struct pci_host_bridge *bridge'.
> > It's easy to change here if you feel strongly about it (I don't).
>
> I would leave host_bridge here. It would make the patch smaller too I think.
Ok, I've changed my local copy as you suggested now.
Arnd
