Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200623040107.22270-1-warthog618@gmail.com> <20200623040107.22270-10-warthog618@gmail.com>
 <CAMpxmJUWZGhB3eeSquOJZQegTAwyb7yyKzBSeOjG7FSzq=BAkg@mail.gmail.com> <20200624141912.GB7569@sol>
In-Reply-To: <20200624141912.GB7569@sol>
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Jun 2020 16:20:49 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMpxmJVsPjOhHymkd=8OsNJZDZUXpU83=m1M4+winaUE0RO2sg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/22] gpiolib: cdev: rename priv to gcdev
To:     Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-gpio <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

=C5=9Br., 24 cze 2020 o 16:19 Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com> napisa=C5=
=82(a):
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 04:04:09PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > wt., 23 cze 2020 o 06:02 Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com> napisa=C5=
=82(a):
> > >
> > > Rename priv to gcdev to improve readability.
> > >
> > > The name "priv" indicates that the object is pointed to by
> > > file->private_data, not what the object is actually is.
> > > It is always used to point to a struct gpio_chardev_data so renaming
> > > it to gcdev seemed as good as anything, and certainly clearer than "p=
riv".
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>
> > >
> >
> > Ugh now it's gcdev and gdev everywhere and it doesn't really make it
> > more readable. Maybe chardev_data or cdev_data?
> >
>
> Agreed, it isn't ideal visually, but is at least more unique than priv.
> Linus was going for short names recently (e.g. gc for gpiochip), so I was
> going for something short.
>
> And I try avoid names ending in _data or _state or similar where they
> don't really add anything.
>
> Would chardev or gchardev work for you?
>

Yes, chardev is fine. Even cdev is fine for me: gdev vs gcdev is
confusing but gdev vs cdev looks better IMO.

Bart