On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 10:25:08PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > > > > i2c-foo.c is consistently used for i2c bus driver themselves so far. > > > > It's somewhat confusing to see you name platform code that way. It's > > > > also redundant, given that the file lives in the swarm platform > > > > directory. May I suggest naming this file just > > > > arch/mips/sibyte/swarm/i2c.c? Other architectures (cris, arm) are doing > > > > this already. > I can do that and I have considered it while preparing the change. What > convinced me not to use a name that is already present elsewhere in the > tree is the confusion that it sometimes causes. For example during a > debugging session GDB only reports the file name and not the leading > pathname (and some people do run GDB over the kernel). Of course the > actual file can still be chased with some `find' and `grep' scriptery, but > why to create a problem in the first place? > > I consider repeated file names throughout a tree of a single program a > namespace pollution similar to one with repeated static symbol names. > While syntactically valid and working, it asks for unnecessary confusion. > > This is my point of view, but I can see others may not necessarily follow > it. I am fine with changing the name to i2c.c as it is unlikely I will > run GDB over it. ;-) I've started using unique prefixes such as ip22- or ip27- a while ago. And why not following that example with arch/mips/sibyte/swarm/swarm-i2c.c or similar? Ralf
