Re: [PATCH v1 05/14] mtd: spi-nor: xilinx: rename vendor specific functions and defines

[Michael Walle]

Am 2022-02-10 09:06, schrieb Tudor.Ambarus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> On 2/10/22 10:04, Michael Walle wrote:
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know 
> > the content is safe
> >
> > Am 2022-02-10 04:08, schrieb Tudor.Ambarus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> > > On 2/2/22 16:58, Michael Walle wrote:
> > > > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you 
> > > > know
> > > > the content is safe
> > > >
> > > > Drop the generic spi_nor prefix for all the xilinx functions.
> > >
> > > mm, no, I would keep the spi_nor prefix because xilinx_sr_ready is 
> > > too
> > > generic and can conflict with methods from other subsystems.
> >
> > But all the other functions in this file start with xilinx_ ;)
> >
> > I don't have a strong opinion here, other than it shouldn't
> > be called spi_nor_read_blaba() because that looks like a
> > standard spi nor function belonging in core.c
>
> then let's prepend all with spi_nor_xilinx_*()?

I'm still not sure what to do here. Have a look at all the other
vendor modules in spi-nor. they are all prefixed with the vendor
name? E.g. there is a sst_write() which is far more likely to
cause a conflict. So should we rename all these functions? Or
do we just take our chance that it might have a conflict in
the future (with an easy fix to rename the function then). TBH
I doubt there will be a global symbol "xilinx_read_sr()".

But I care for consistency, so having some named xilinx_, sst_,
st_micron_ and some spi_nor_read_xsr sounds and looks awful.

-michael