On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 10:39:41PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 10:36:29PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > > i2c-octeon-objs := i2c-cavium.o i2c-octeon-core.o > > > obj-$(CONFIG_I2C_OCTEON) += i2c-octeon.o > > > +i2c-thunderx-objs := i2c-cavium.o i2c-thunderx-core.o > > > +obj-$(CONFIG_I2C_THUNDERX) += i2c-thunderx.o > > > > Shouldn't that rather be "i2c-cavium-core.o", > > Thinking of it again, it should probably even be "i2c-octeon-core.o" to > avoid confusion because all the functions start with octeon_* > > > "i2c-octeon-platdrv.o", and "i2c-thunderx-pcidrv.o" for the -objs? > > Those names still make sense :) >
Agreed, the naming you propose looks much better. --Jan
