Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 26 May 2011 21:22:43 -0600 | From | Grant Likely <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/4] Samsung: Move Samsung SoCs GPIO drivers to drivers/gpio |
| |
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 12:21:02PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 12:31:28AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > > On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 02:44:41PM +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote: > > > .../gpiolib.c => drivers/gpio/s5pc100-gpio.c | 0 > > > .../gpiolib.c => drivers/gpio/s5pv210-gpio.c | 0 > > > .../gpiolib.c => drivers/gpio/samsung-gpiolib.c | 3 +- > > > drivers/gpio/gpio-*.c please. I'm starting to enforce some level of > > naming convention. > > Hrm, looking at the current mainline drivers the existing tendency seems > to be mostly towards gpio/*-gpio.c...
However, drivers/i2c/busses is nicely organized with i2c-*.c, and a lot of the spi drivers are drivers/spi/spi* (although it is a mixed bag here). I also personally prefer the drivers to have the type as a prefix instead of a suffix, and I hope to reorganize both drivers/spi and drivers/gpio to follow the i2c lead in the next cycle.
True, this does come down to personal taste, but unless someone has a really strong objection to it then I'll keep asking for new drivers to use gpio- as a prefix.
g.
| |