On 25.02.2010 11:50, Michael Karcher wrote:
Still fallout of adding "-Wshadow". Missed the ht1000 one (chipset_enable is not compied on Windows where we had the collision with "byte" last time) and the other occurrence is newly introduced. Old libpci defines a global symbol called "byte" too.
Signed-off-by: Michael Karcher flashrom@mkarcher.dialup.fu-berlin.de
No objection from a technical POV, but I really dislike the name lpc_8a. I don't have a good suggestion for a better variable name, though. Maybe mcp_bustype? Oh well.
Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net
Regards, Carl-Daniel
Am Donnerstag, den 25.02.2010, 12:03 +0100 schrieb Carl-Daniel Hailfinger: [renaming "byte" to "lpc_8a" in MCP chipset init]
No objection from a technical POV, but I really dislike the name lpc_8a. I don't have a good suggestion for a better variable name, though. Maybe mcp_bustype?
I really dislike mcp_bustype, because the register 0x8a contains more info than just the bus type, but we don't know what the other bits mean. As we seem to have completely different preferences on identifier naming (which is OK), I suggest to replace the generic name "byte" by the generic name "val". Would that be OK with you?
Regards, Michael Karcher
On 25.02.2010 12:29, Michael Karcher wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 25.02.2010, 12:03 +0100 schrieb Carl-Daniel Hailfinger: [renaming "byte" to "lpc_8a" in MCP chipset init]
No objection from a technical POV, but I really dislike the name lpc_8a. I don't have a good suggestion for a better variable name, though. Maybe mcp_bustype?
I really dislike mcp_bustype, because the register 0x8a contains more info than just the bus type, but we don't know what the other bits mean. As we seem to have completely different preferences on identifier naming (which is OK), I suggest to replace the generic name "byte" by the generic name "val". Would that be OK with you?
Sure, good idea.
Regards, Carl-Daniel
Am Donnerstag, den 25.02.2010, 12:31 +0100 schrieb Carl-Daniel Hailfinger:
On 25.02.2010 12:29, Michael Karcher wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 25.02.2010, 12:03 +0100 schrieb Carl-Daniel Hailfinger: [renaming "byte" to "lpc_8a" in MCP chipset init]
No objection from a technical POV, but I really dislike the name lpc_8a. I don't have a good suggestion for a better variable name, though. Maybe mcp_bustype?
As we seem to have completely different preferences on identifier naming (which is OK), I suggest to replace the generic name "byte" by the generic name "val". Would that be OK with you?
Sure, good idea.
OK, thanks. That makes r913.
Regards, Michael Karcher
-
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger -
Michael Karcher