On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 at 16:26, Marek Vasut <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2/26/24 11:43 AM, Sumit Garg wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 at 14:24, Marek Vasut <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> On 2/26/24 9:04 AM, Sumit Garg wrote: > >> > >> [...] > >> > >>> +static int imx7_reset_assert_imx8mp(struct reset_ctl *rst) > >> > >> Linux calls those imx8mp_reset_set() can co. which is less confusing > >> than imx7...imx8mp() , use it. > >> > > > > IMO, it would be more confusing if we choose two different naming > > patterns for the same driver, see existing function names > > imx7_reset_{deassert/assert}_imx* pattern. > > Maybe create a patch which updates the naming scheme ?
I can do that as a preparatory patch. > > Using two SoC names in one function name is confusing I think . > > >> In fact, why not copy the code from Linux outright ? > > > > I suppose the question here is to not convert the driver to use > > regmap, right? If it is then that should be done as a separate cleanup > > patch. > > If it isn't too hard, please do the clean up first and then add the > MX8MP bits on top. The coding part is easy but it is rather the testing part which I am worried about as I don't have access to all the platforms which rely on this driver. -Sumit > > [...]
