Simon, On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > Hi Doug, > > On 16 June 2014 14:39, Doug Anderson <diand...@chromium.org> wrote: >> From: Bill Richardson <wfric...@chromium.org> >> >> The members of struct cros_ec_device were improperly commented, and >> intermixed the private and public sections. This is just cleanup to make it >> more obvious what goes with what. >> >> [dianders: left lock in the structure but gave it the name that will >> eventually be used.] >> >> Signed-off-by: Bill Richardson <wfric...@chromium.org> >> Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson <diand...@chromium.org> >> --- >> drivers/mfd/cros_ec.c | 2 +- >> drivers/mfd/cros_ec_i2c.c | 4 +-- >> drivers/mfd/cros_ec_spi.c | 10 +++---- >> include/linux/mfd/cros_ec.h | 65 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- >> 4 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/cros_ec.c b/drivers/mfd/cros_ec.c >> index bd6f936..a9eede5 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mfd/cros_ec.c >> +++ b/drivers/mfd/cros_ec.c >> @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ static int cros_ec_command_sendrecv(struct cros_ec_device >> *ec_dev, >> msg.in_buf = in_buf; >> msg.in_len = in_len; >> >> - return ec_dev->command_xfer(ec_dev, &msg); >> + return ec_dev->cmd_xfer(ec_dev, &msg); > > Why do this rename? It makes it different from the other members.
All I know of the history of this change is at <http://crosreview.com/57061>. My best guess is that Bill was trying to differentiate public vs. private function pointers. Perhaps he will chime in. If it helps the other command_xxx() function pointers are removed in the later "mfd: cros_ec: cleanup: Remove EC wrapper functions" If you wish I can skip this rename, just let me know and it won't be too much trouble. -Doug -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
