On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 4:43 PM Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 5:55 PM Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > ath10k_wcn3990_clk_info and ath10k_wcn3990_vreg_info are not
> > WCN3990-specific structures. They hold generic data. So don't name them
> > with wcn3990 specifics.
> >
> > -static struct ath10k_wcn3990_vreg_info vreg_cfg[] = {
> > +static struct ath10k_vreg_info vreg_cfg[] = {
>
> Ironically, you could sorta make the argument that this should be:
>
> static struct ath10k_vreg_info wcn3990_vreg_cfg
Hehe, good point.
> AKA the "wcn3990" shouldn't be in the name of the structure (since all
> snoc devices can have the concept of an array of regulators) but
> wcn3990 could be in the name of the variable since it's possible that
> different snoc devices could have different arrays. However I'm OK w/
> waiting to do that part until we actually see a different snoc device
> with a different array.
But I think that is a pretty reasonable conclusion.
There's still some other strange stuff in this driver too, like the
fact that this is NOT a const array -- we assign things dynamically to
the regulator fields within the array -- that we would probably want
to fix if this is really supposed to be a generic multi-IP driver.
> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks,
Brian
