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?
Amicalement,