[U-Boot] [PATCH v8 14/14] sf: Rename sf_ops.c to spi-flash.c

[Simon Glass]

Hi Jagan,

On 11 December 2015 at 00:02, Jagan Teki <jteki at openedev.com> wrote:
> On Friday 11 December 2015 12:21 PM, Bin Meng wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jagan,
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Jagan Teki <jteki at 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 at openedev.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10 December 2015 at 07:01, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6 December 2015 at 11:34, Jagan Teki <jteki at 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 at 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 at 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 _.
>
>
> sf_probe.c is a dm driver - agree?
> If ie the case probably this is the first file has a code moved from dm
> driver into different file which is spi-flash in this case.

The current convention is that the uclass driver has a hyphen. There
is a different between the *single* uclass driver for a uclass, and
all the 'normal' drivers that use it. Also all the uclass drivers have
UCLASS_DRIVER() defined in then, and end in '-uclass.c'. Please can
you rename the file to spi_flash.c?

Regards,
Simon