| Message ID | 1449426866-696-15-git-send-email-jteki@openedev.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Delegated to: | Jagannadha Sutradharudu Teki |
| Headers | show |
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)
On 9 December 2015 at 10:24, 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) I too thought the same, but will rename the remaining to proper have a plan for the same. thanks!
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 _. Other than this, Reviewed-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com>
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. > > Other than this, > > Reviewed-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> thanks!
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. > >> >> Other than this, >> >> Reviewed-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> > > thanks! > -- Regards, Bin
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. Let me know if you're not clear though. thanks!
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
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@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 _. 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. thanks!
Hi Jagan, On 11 December 2015 at 00:02, Jagan Teki <jteki@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@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 _. > > > 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
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi/Makefile b/drivers/mtd/spi/Makefile index a24f761..7bc76a2 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/spi/Makefile +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi/Makefile @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_SPL_SPI_LOAD) += spi_spl_load.o obj-$(CONFIG_SPL_SPI_BOOT) += fsl_espi_spl.o endif -obj-$(CONFIG_SPI_FLASH) += sf_probe.o sf_ops.o sf_params.o sf.o +obj-$(CONFIG_SPI_FLASH) += sf_probe.o spi-flash.o sf_params.o sf.o obj-$(CONFIG_SPI_FLASH_DATAFLASH) += sf_dataflash.o obj-$(CONFIG_SPI_FLASH_MTD) += sf_mtd.o obj-$(CONFIG_SPI_FLASH_SANDBOX) += sandbox.o diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_ops.c b/drivers/mtd/spi/spi-flash.c similarity index 99% rename from drivers/mtd/spi/sf_ops.c rename to drivers/mtd/spi/spi-flash.c index c065858..7ffa136 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_ops.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi/spi-flash.c @@ -1,9 +1,10 @@ /* - * SPI flash operations + * SPI Flash Core * - * Copyright (C) 2008 Atmel Corporation - * Copyright (C) 2010 Reinhard Meyer, EMK Elektronik + * Copyright (C) 2015 Jagan Teki <jteki@openedev.com> * Copyright (C) 2013 Jagannadha Sutradharudu Teki, Xilinx Inc. + * Copyright (C) 2010 Reinhard Meyer, EMK Elektronik + * Copyright (C) 2008 Atmel Corporation * * SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ */
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%)