lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [May]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [i2c] [RFC][PATCH 4/4] RTC: SMBus support for the M41T80,
    On Sat, 10 May 2008 03:21:35 +0100 (BST), Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
    > > This was an option when the functions where introduced 9 years ago.
    > > But now that it was done, renaming them would cause even more
    > > confusion, I think. I would be fine with adding comments in i2c-core.c
    > > or improving Documentation/i2c/smbus-protocol to make it more obious,
    > > though.
    > >
    > > On a related note, you will notice that the other i2c_smbus_* functions
    > > do not follow the naming of SMBus transactions. Again that's something
    > > I regret but I feel that changing the names now would cause a lot of
    > > confusion amongst developers, so I'm not doing it.
    >
    > It may not be worth the effort, but if done in bulk for all the users in
    > the tree, there should be no problem with that. I am fairly sure there
    > were changes of this kind from time to time, with occasional screams heard
    > in response from some dark corners, but no big pain. We obviously
    > explicitly disregard out-of-tree users and for occasional contributors
    > asking: "Where the * has this function gone?" there is the Documentation/
    > tree to provide a greppable reference, so generally not a big deal.

    It's not that easy. There are some drivers which are both in-tree and
    out-of-tree, for which such a change means adding ifdefs. And there is
    i2c-dev.h (the user-space one) which has similar functions, if we
    rename only the kernel variants, there will be some confusion. But if
    we rename also the user-space variants, then it's up to 2.4 kernel
    users to have different names for kernel-space and user-space functions.

    All in all I'd say it is not worth the effort. There are many other
    tasks where our time will be better used.

    > > Just one patch should be enough, if I agree with all the changes. You
    > > might make a separate patch with the things I may not agree with, so
    > > that you don't have to cherry-revert them if I indeed don't agree, and
    > > we just merge them if I do agree.
    >
    > Hmm, technically you do not seem to be responsible to accept changes
    > under drivers/rtc/, so I will split them anyway for others to decide.

    Huu, sorry, for some reason I thought that we were still speaking about
    i2c-sibyte. Of course I don't have my say about what happens in
    drivers/rtc.

    --
    Jean Delvare


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-05-10 08:57    [W:0.025 / U:58.724 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site