Hi Jagan,
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Jagan Teki jteki@openedev.com wrote:
On Friday 11 December 2015 11:53 AM, Bin Meng wrote:
Hi Jagan,
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Jagan Teki jteki@openedev.com wrote:
On 10 December 2015 at 07:01, Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
On 6 December 2015 at 11:34, Jagan Teki jteki@openedev.com wrote:
Since all spi-flash core operations are moved into sf_ops.c then it's better to renamed as spi-flash.c
Signed-off-by: Jagan Teki jteki@openedev.com
drivers/mtd/spi/Makefile | 2 +- drivers/mtd/spi/{sf_ops.c => spi-flash.c} | 7 ++++--- 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) rename drivers/mtd/spi/{sf_ops.c => spi-flash.c} (99%)
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
(but I suggest spi_flash.c is better as it fits with the other files)
Agreed. spi_flash.c makes more sense. So far it looks that only driver model uclass driver is using - in the file name, others are using _.
Clear, but this file will handle common spi-flash core functionalities it shouldn't be dm even now or later and more over underlying sf_probe which is calling this through spi_flash_scan has a driver model on it.
Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean. But my comment is to rename sf_ops.c to sf_flash.c, not sf-flash.c.
spi-flash.c (the function spi_flash_scan from sf_probe, so this never be a dm driver and it handles all core functionalities ====================================================================== sf_probe.c (this has dm support) =================================
Since you're saying dm has - and ie the reason I'm saying spi-flash.c should technically a dm supported core.
I was saying it looks to me that only dm uclass driver is allowed to have -, like sf-uclass.c or pci-uclass.c. Other files we should use _.
Let me know if you're not clear though.
Regards, Bin