Messages in this thread | | | From | Masahiro Yamada <> | Date | Mon, 11 Sep 2017 21:41:47 +0900 | Subject | Re: Questions about NVMEM |
| |
Hi Greg
2017-09-11 20:24 GMT+09:00 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 07:33:20PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >> >> (Q3) The style of drivers/nvmem/Makefile >> >> >> >> This Makefile looks ugly to me. >> >> All nvmem drivers are just single file modules. >> >> Why are they renamed when modules are created? >> >> >> >> For the name-space reason for modules, >> >> prefix "nvmem-" makes sense to me. >> >> >> >> It is true that adding "nvmem-" prefix is redundant while >> >> they are located in drivers/nvmem/ directory, >> >> but renaming in the Makefile is even more annoying to me. >> >> Having said that, we may not want to churn this. >> > >> > This is mainly done for consistent module naming. >> > I prefer to have nvmem- prefix for nvmem modules. >> > >> >> I 100% agree that all nvmem modules should have "nvmem-" prefix >> consistently. >> >> My question was, why .c files do not have the same file name as >> the module name? >> >> The more straight-forward way would be: >> drivers/nvmem/nvmem_core.c >> drivers/nvmem/nvmem-bcm-ocotp.c >> drivers/nvmem/nvmem-imx-iim.c >> etc. > > No, the way the current code is, is just fine, please leave it alone, it > is the style that other subsystems are moving to as well. >
I did not know that.
OK, if this is the preferred style, let's keep it.
-- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
| |