Return-path: Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([192.100.122.233]:21294 "EHLO mgw-mx06.nokia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758881Ab0J1Rea (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Oct 2010 13:34:30 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH ] wl1271: Change wl12xx Files Names From: Luciano Coelho To: ext Shahar Levi Cc: "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" In-Reply-To: <4CC9AC72.40909@ti.com> References: <1288091935-21688-1-git-send-email-shahar_levi@ti.com> <1288207558.1698.56.camel@powerslave> <4CC9A1F5.4010308@ti.com> <1288285263.3414.7.camel@powerslave> <4CC9AC72.40909@ti.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:53:56 +0300 Message-ID: <1288288436.3414.10.camel@powerslave> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 19:01 +0200, ext Shahar Levi wrote: > On 10/28/2010 07:01 PM, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 18:16 +0200, ext Shahar Levi wrote: > >> On 10/27/2010 09:25 PM, Luciano Coelho wrote: > >>> On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 13:18 +0200, ext Shahar Levi wrote: > >>>> +wl12xx_spi-objs = spi.o > >>>> +wl12xx_sdio-objs = sdio.o > >>> > >>> Here... > >> Will be fix in v2 > > > > There's nothing to fix here. I just pointed out that the modules are > > actually called wl12xx_sdio and wl12xx_spi. So it's correct here > > already. > Due to the fact it is confusing spi and sdio i renamed spi.c file name > to wl12xx_spi.c (in v2) and in that case i remove those lines. > The same catch for sdio.c Sorry, I don't get the reasoning behind this. sdio.c and spi.c are better than wl12xx_sdio.c and wl12xx_spi.c. Why not keep things consistent all across? > >>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1271_main.c b/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/main.c > >>>> similarity index 99% > >>>> rename from drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1271_main.c > >>>> rename to drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/main.c > >>>> index 63036b5..dab10a5 100644 > >>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1271_main.c > >>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/main.c > >>>> @@ -31,20 +31,20 @@ > >>> > >>> [...] > >>> > >>>> #define WL1271_BOOT_RETRIES 3 > >>> > >>> Did we agree not to change this stuff for now? Yes, now I remember, it's > >>> better to do it in two steps indeed (ie. do the other changes in a > >>> separate patch). But I'd rather apply all the patches add once. > >> I believe that patch could stand alone. There isn't any connection > >> between files names and function+defines names. > > > > Yes, no need to change these macros or function names in this patch. > In that case it can be apply alon, is it? ;-) Not sure I understand this. We should have two separate patches, one with the file name changes (including the #define __CONF_H__ stuff) and another patch just to change the function names and macros. -- Cheers, Luca.