On Sat, 24 Jan 2026, Artur Weber wrote: > Sorry for the late reply to a 3-month-old review, but I missed this comment: > > On 23.10.2025 15:03, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Oct 2025, Artur Weber wrote: > > > +static bool bcm590xx_volatile_pri(struct device *dev, unsigned int reg) > > > > If I've asked a question or showed uncertainty about something, it > > usually means that changes need to be made. Asking what "pri" meant > > wasn't a one time thing. It shows that something is not clear and if > > I'm asking, others will wonder too. > > > > Can we change 'sec' to 'secondary' and 'pri' to 'primary' please? > > That function was named for consistency with the other uses of "pri" and > "sec" in the code; this function is passed to a field in the struct > "bcm590xx_regmap_config_pri". > > (Admittedly, "bcm590xx_regmap_volatile_pri" would be a more accurate > function name.) > > I understand that the pri/sec naming could be confusing though. Should I > update the entire driver to use primary/secondary instead, or just this > one function? Or just the regmap_config? > > The regmap_pri and regmap_sec names are also used in the bcm590xx struct > which is passed to other drivers (currently only the regulator driver), > changing those would also involve changing that driver, but that's fine > by me.
My preference would be to elevate the ambiguity everywhere. But it's not a demand. Do what you think is best. -- Lee Jones [李琼斯]
