Hi Arjan,
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:47:23 +0800
Arjan van de Ven<arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 3/27/2011 7:47 PM, Feng Tang wrote:Yes, the "get_gpio_by_name" name itself is very generic, but it'sOn Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:34:22 +0800get_gpio_by_name() would be a very good generic name for a function
Arjan van de Ven<arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 3/27/2011 7:29 PM, Lu Guanqun wrote:Hi Arjan,Export get_gpio_by_name() function and make its name more focused.I can't say that I like the new name... at all.
We are doing this because currently get_gpio_by_name() is only
used by the devices exported from SFI DEVS table, but it is also
useful for other PCI devices which also use the GPIO lines, and
have their gpio infos in the SFI GPIO table.
what's "mid" ?
what is wrong with the original name????
The original get_gpio_by_name() is static and only used in mrst.c
as it's mrst/mfld specific. So if we call it from a PCI driver,
that name sounds
provided by the gpio layer as well.
implementation is not in the GPIO core, but inside the mrst.c and
bound to Moorestown/Medfield platforms.
Sorry for missed it in last email, "mid" stands for Mobile Internet Device,like a platform independent general API while it's actuallythat makes no sense.
mrst/mfld bound. So we would show this dependency from the function
name.
and again, what on earth is a "mid"??????????
Moorestown/Medfield platform are defined as MID, and this name is already
used by some driver files.
Thanks,
Feng
_______________________________________________
MeeGo-kernel mailing list
MeeGo-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-kernel