Hi, On 08/03/12 23:22, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > So, should this function just be called something else, for the type of > hardware (lpc32xx?), and then do this check within the function? Right. LPC32xx and PNX4008 seem to share much of the functionality but they don't share the bits() part. How about renaming (the static) pnx4008_set_usb_bits() pnx4008_unset_usb_bits() to set_usb_bits() unset_usb_bits() and internally doing machine_is_pnx4008() dependent stuff? Regarding the other pnx4008_*() functions that are shared with lpc32xx, they only inherit the name for historical reasons. Which naming scheme should apply here if change is due? One common name between those two would be "nxp". We could replace everything common between pnx4008 and lpc32xx with nxp (including ths driver name) and handle the small pnx4008-specific stuff via machine_is_pnx4008(). Thanks in advance, Roland -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
