[PATCH v1 05/14] mtd: spi-nor: xilinx: rename vendor specific functions and defines

[Michael Walle]

Am 2022-02-15 09:52, schrieb Tudor.Ambarus at microchip.com:
> Miquel in To:
> 
> On 2/15/22 10:25, Michael Walle wrote:
>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know 
>> the content is safe
>> 
>> Am 2022-02-10 09:06, schrieb Tudor.Ambarus at microchip.com:
>>> On 2/10/22 10:04, Michael Walle wrote:
>>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you 
>>>> know
>>>> the content is safe
>>>> 
>>>> Am 2022-02-10 04:08, schrieb Tudor.Ambarus at microchip.com:
>>>>> On 2/2/22 16:58, Michael Walle wrote:
>>>>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you
>>>>>> know
>>>>>> the content is safe
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Drop the generic spi_nor prefix for all the xilinx functions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> mm, no, I would keep the spi_nor prefix because xilinx_sr_ready is
>>>>> too
>>>>> generic and can conflict with methods from other subsystems.
>>>> 
>>>> But all the other functions in this file start with xilinx_ ;)
>>>> 
>>>> I don't have a strong opinion here, other than it shouldn't
>>>> be called spi_nor_read_blaba() because that looks like a
>>>> standard spi nor function belonging in core.c
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> then let's prepend all with spi_nor_xilinx_*()?
>> 
>> I'm still not sure what to do here. Have a look at all the other
>> vendor modules in spi-nor. they are all prefixed with the vendor
>> name? E.g. there is a sst_write() which is far more likely to
>> cause a conflict. So should we rename all these functions? Or
>> do we just take our chance that it might have a conflict in
>> the future (with an easy fix to rename the function then). TBH
>> I doubt there will be a global symbol "xilinx_read_sr()".
> 
> I doubt it will not be a conflict.
> 
>> 
>> But I care for consistency, so having some named xilinx_, sst_,
>> st_micron_ and some spi_nor_read_xsr sounds and looks awful.
> 
> yes, I agree. Take a look on what's happening in NAND. They prepend
> the name with vendor_nand_*(). Or in SPI NAND they use flash family
> names which should be unique. So how about aligning with NAND and
> use vendor_nor_*()?

Sounds good. Regarding the flash family.. take a look at Winbond W25M
which can either be NAND or NOR depending on the size ;)

But the main question was rather whether we rename all the function
names at once or bit by bit. To proceed here with this series, I'd
use the vendor_nor_ prefix for the moved functions (but still keep
the micron_st_ st_micron_ rename patch).

-michael