On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 10:39:41PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 10:36:29PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:

quoted

quoted

 i2c-octeon-objs := i2c-cavium.o i2c-octeon-core.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_I2C_OCTEON)	+= i2c-octeon.o
+i2c-thunderx-objs := i2c-cavium.o i2c-thunderx-core.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_I2C_THUNDERX)	+= i2c-thunderx.o

Shouldn't that rather be "i2c-cavium-core.o",

Thinking of it again, it should probably even be "i2c-octeon-core.o" to
avoid confusion because all the functions start with octeon_*

quoted

"i2c-octeon-platdrv.o",  and "i2c-thunderx-pcidrv.o" for the -objs?

Those names still make sense :)

Agreed, the naming you propose looks much better.

--Jan