Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH v5 08/17] soundwire: add initial definitions for sdw_master_device

[Pierre-Louis Bossart]

> > > > A parent (such as the Intel audio controller) would use sdw_md_add()
> > > > to create the device, passing a driver as a parameter. The
> > > > sdw_md_release() would be called when put_device() is invoked by the
> > > > parent. We use the shortcut 'md' for 'master device' to avoid very
> > > > long function names.
> > >
> > > I agree we should not have long name :) but md does not sound great. Can
> > > we drop the device and use sdw_slave and sdw_master for devices and
> > > append _driver when we are talking about drivers...
> > >
> > > we dont use sd for slave and imo this would gel well with existing names
> >
> > In SoundWire parlance, both 'Slave' and 'Master' are 'Devices', so yes we do
> > in the standard talk about 'Slave Devices' and 'Master Devices'.
> >
> > Then we have Linux 'Devices' which can be used for both.
> >
> > If we use 'sdw_slave', would we be referring to the actual physical part or
> > the Linux device?
> >
> > FWIW the Greybus example used 'Host Device' and 'hd' as shortcut.
>
> But this messes up consistency in the naming of sdw objects. I am all for
> it, if we do sd for slave and name all structs and APIs accordingly. The key
> is consistency!
>
> So it needs to be sd/md and so on or sdw_slave and sdw_master and so
> on... not a mix of both


Well the problem is that the existing code took a shortcut and only 
modeled the slave part, e.g.

struct sdw_slave *slave = dev_to_sdw_dev(dev);

so now it's difficult to add 'sdw_slave_device' and 'sdw_master_device' 
without quite a few changes.

Would this work for you if we used the following names:

sdw_slave (legacy shortcut for sdw_slave_device, which could be removed 
in a a future cleanup if desired).
sdw_slave_driver
sdw_master_device
sdw_master_driver

and all the 'md' replaced by the full 'master_device'.