On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 02:02:16PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 6:22 AM Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 08:15:23AM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > > > We call it struct device_d, any instances of struct device are likely > > > left-over code after porting from Linux. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/crypto/caam/intern.h | 5 ----- > > > drivers/crypto/caam/jr.h | 2 -- > > > drivers/gpio/gpio-sx150x.c | 1 - > > > drivers/usb/musb/musb_gadget.c | 9 --------- > > > 4 files changed, 17 deletions(-) > > > > Applied, thanks > > > > Sascha > > > Why doesn't barebox use (struct device)? For historical reasons. When creating barebox I thought that it's better to not use the same struct name when they are not exactly compatible. We have struct driver_d for the same reason. I am not sure I would do the same again. If we find good reasons to name them struct device and struct driver we can change that. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
