On 04/09/2014 08:48 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
Return to the 'phy' field of 'struct usb_hcd' its historic name 'transceiver'. This is in preparation to adding the generic PHY support.
Surely if the correct term is transceiver, we should be adding generic transceiver support not generic PHY support? To be honest, this rename feels like churn, especially since the APIs and DT bindings all still include the work phy so now everything will be inconsistent.
How about 'usb_phy'?
That certainly would make things more consistent, but I wonder why "usb_phy" is better than "phy" when the code/struct in question is something USB-specific; the "usb_" prefix seems implicit to me due to context.
I tend to agree. However, I need to name the new field of stype 'struct phy *' somehow... perhaps something like 'gen_phy' for it would do?
WBR, Sergei -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
