Hi Albert, On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 1:53 AM, Albert ARIBAUD <albert.arib...@free.fr>wrote:
> Le 12/07/2010 08:53, Prafulla Wadaskar a écrit : > >> - struct kwgbe_device *dkwgbe = to_dkwgbe(dev); >>>>> >>>>> - struct kwgbe_registers *regs = dkwgbe->regs; >>>>> + struct mv_egiga_device *dmvegiga = to_mv_egiga(dev); >>>>> + struct mv_egiga_registers *regs = dmvegiga->regs; >>>>> >>>> I suggest to keep name as mvgbe here instead of mv_egiga, 3 >>>> >>> additional chars, increases overall code size >>> huh? The name is consistent with the rest of his work, and *if* the >>> code really increases in size, I can't imagine that 3 chars really >>> matters... >>> >> >> That's true. >> But if we can do it why to avoid it? again it helps to keep same >> indentation (keeping them below 80char size) >> > > I don't think I changed indentation here, and the issue is about line > lengths, right? > > Initially I chose mv egiga because the file names used egiga while the code > used gbe, and I wanted clarity, so I decided to keep only one of egiga and > gbe. Now which one I should keep is not really important to me, and a Google > search for marvell egiga vs marvell gbe indicates gbe appears much more > frequently, so someone looking into this will probably know "GbE" more than > "egiga". > > I suggest that: > > - I switch the file names from mv_egiga to "mvgbe" (to be consistent with > Prafulla's comment on mv_sata becoming mvsata), and > > - I replace mv_egiga/MV_EGIGA symbols with mvgbe/MVGBE. > > That will retain (as much) clarity and uniformity (as egiga does), which is > what I think Ben is looking for, and it'll keep name length at a minimum, > which should satisfy Prafulla. > > Ben, Prafulla (and others as well, of course), do you agree? > OK with me. > Amicalement, > -- > Albert. > regards, Ben
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot