Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>
To:     peda@axentia.se
Cc:     Manohar.Puri@microchip.com, UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com,
        alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com, claudiu.beznea@microchip.com,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, kavyasree.kotagiri@microchip.com,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, lee.jones@linaro.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux@armlinux.org.uk, nicolas.ferre@microchip.com,
        Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] mux: lan966: Add support for flexcom mux controller
Date:   Tue, 17 May 2022 13:53:27 +0200
Message-Id: <20220517115327.4139280-1-michael@walle.cc>
In-Reply-To: <e43d766f-ec63-93d7-6b19-05b32579e6e3@axentia.se>
References: <e43d766f-ec63-93d7-6b19-05b32579e6e3@axentia.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

>> +struct mux_lan966x {
>
> Why is the file named lan966, but then everything inside lan966x?

So I was about to reply to the bindings but since that question
came up here, too, I'll do it here.

IMHO the name "lan966" is super confusing and if I followed it
correctly, it was just invented because the DT guys don't want to
have a wildcard in the compatibles. But LAN966 isn't a real product,
just LAN9662 and LAN9668 is.

I'd really prefer to have a consistent naming. I've said it once
[1], having "lan966" (over lan966x) feels like cheating and is even
worse, because everyone would assume there is a thing named LAN966.
lan966x might lead the reader to think twice what the 'x' means.

So I'd prefer to have lan966x in the documentation and the drivers
and just "microchip,lan9668" or "microchip,lan9662" in the
compatibles.

-michael

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/d18291ff8d81f03a58900935d92115f2@walle.cc/