On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 11:44:34PM +0100, Roland Stigge wrote: > 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(). That sounds more reasonable, right? But do it in at least two patches to make things obvious as to what is happening. thanks, greg k-h -- 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
