Hi Andy,
On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 04:40:13PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 05:23:56PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
Follow the pattern, please, I suppose
ti_pmic_tps68470.c
This pattern is weird. "ti" in front of the file name is redundant, and in
very few places the vendor prefix is used anyway. Especially when the chip
has a proper name --- as this one does.
I assume for the Intel PMICs it could be there for a couple of reasons which
are
1) lack of a clearly unique chip ID and
2) the use of common frameworklet for Intel PMICs.
There are also no other PMIC chips supported currently.
The pmic_tps68470 naming is in line with the GPIO driver (apart from the
dash / underscore difference).
Since
% git ls-files *pmic*
returns somewhat interesting results, I would even go further and use
tps68470.c here
and
s/ti_pmic/tps6840/g
inside the file.
Would it work for you?
This is still a different driver from the tps68470 driver which is an MFD
driver. For clarity, I'd keep pmic as part of the name (and I'd use
tps68470_pmic_ prefix for internal symbols, too).
As PMICs are typically linked to the kernel (vs. being modules), there's no
issue with the module name. I would suppose few if any PMICs will be
compiled as modules in general.