[U-Boot] [PATCH V3 2/5] mv_egiga: support SoCs other than kirkwood

[Ben Warren]

Hi Albert,

On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 1:53 AM, Albert ARIBAUD <albert.aribaud at 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