[PATCH v3 4/7] mtd: nand: raw: prefix conflicting names with nandc instead of nand

[Marek Vasut]

On 01/11/2017 02:14 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 14:08:02 +0100
> Marek Vasut <marek.vasut at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 01/11/2017 01:39 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 13:09:09 +0100
>>> Marek Vasut <marek.vasut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>   
>>>> On 01/11/2017 08:46 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote:  
>>>>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 20:08:23 +0100
>>>>> Marek Vasut <marek.vasut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>     
>>>>>> On 11/21/2016 01:45 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote:    
>>>>>>> Some raw NAND function names conflict with names defined in nand.h.
>>>>>>> Prefix all those functions with nandc (for nand chip) instead of nand so
>>>>>>> we can include nand.h from rawnand.h
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon at free-electrons.com>      
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nit, nand and nandc is quite confusing, why not call it nand_chip in full?
>>>>>>    
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed, the name is confusing as hell, I just tried to keep it
>>>>> short but that's probably not a good idea.
>>>>> Maybe I should just prefix/suffix the new functions with nanddev instead
>>>>> of changing the existing ones. What do you think?    
>>>>
>>>> That'd be less intrusive, but tbh, if the name is descriptive enough, I
>>>> don't care either way. What does 'nanddev' imply though ? NAND device as
>>>> in physical device or chip or just a kernel device object ? :-)
>>>>  
>>>
>>> Physical device, but it's also exposed as a kernel dev object by the
>>> MTD layer.  
>>
>> So I guess nandchip if it's supposed to be physical device then.
>>
> 
> You mean s/nandc/nandchip/, right? I'm fine with that.
> 

Yes


-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut