Status quo is that variables of type struct vt8500_chip * are named
"pwm", "chip" or "pc". The two formers are all not optimal because
usually only struct pwm_device * variables are named "pwm" and "chip" is
usually used for variabled of type struct pwm_chip *.

So consistently use the same and non-conflicting name "pc".

Signed-off-by: zhaoxiao <zhaoxiao@uniontech.com>
---
 drivers/pwm/pwm-vt8500.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++-------------------
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-vt8500.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-vt8500.c
index 7170a315535b..fc0a572f7d06 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-vt8500.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-vt8500.c
@@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, vt8500_pwm_dt_ids);
 
 static int vt8500_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 {
-	struct vt8500_chip *chip;
+	struct vt8500_chip *pc;
 	struct device_node *np = pdev->dev.of_node;
 	int ret;
 
@@ -244,48 +244,48 @@ static int vt8500_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
 
-	chip = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*chip), GFP_KERNEL);
-	if (chip == NULL)
+	pc = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*pc), GFP_KERNEL);
+	if (pc == NULL)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 
-	chip->chip.dev = &pdev->dev;
-	chip->chip.ops = &vt8500_pwm_ops;
-	chip->chip.npwm = VT8500_NR_PWMS;
+	pc->chip.dev = &pdev->dev;
+	pc->chip.ops = &vt8500_pwm_ops;
+	pc->chip.npwm = VT8500_NR_PWMS;
 
-	chip->clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, NULL);
-	if (IS_ERR(chip->clk)) {
+	pc->clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, NULL);
+	if (IS_ERR(pc->clk)) {
 		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "clock source not specified\n");
-		return PTR_ERR(chip->clk);
+		return PTR_ERR(pc->clk);
 	}
 
-	chip->base = devm_platform_ioremap_resource(pdev, 0);
-	if (IS_ERR(chip->base))
-		return PTR_ERR(chip->base);
+	pc->base = devm_platform_ioremap_resource(pdev, 0);
+	if (IS_ERR(pc->base))
+		return PTR_ERR(pc->base);
 
-	ret = clk_prepare(chip->clk);
+	ret = clk_prepare(pc->clk);
 	if (ret < 0) {
 		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to prepare clock\n");
 		return ret;
 	}
 
-	ret = pwmchip_add(&chip->chip);
+	ret = pwmchip_add(&pc->chip);
 	if (ret < 0) {
 		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to add PWM chip\n");
-		clk_unprepare(chip->clk);
+		clk_unprepare(pc->clk);
 		return ret;
 	}
 
-	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, chip);
+	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, pc);
 	return ret;
 }
 
 static int vt8500_pwm_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
 {
-	struct vt8500_chip *chip = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
+	struct vt8500_chip *pc = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
 
-	pwmchip_remove(&chip->chip);
+	pwmchip_remove(&pc->chip);
 
-	clk_unprepare(chip->clk);
+	clk_unprepare(pc->clk);
 
 	return 0;
 }
-- 
2.20.1

On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 02:47:55PM +0800, zhaoxiao wrote:
> Status quo is that variables of type struct vt8500_chip * are named
> "pwm", "chip" or "pc". The two formers are all not optimal because

There are no variables named "pwm" or "pc".

> usually only struct pwm_device * variables are named "pwm" and "chip" is
> usually used for variabled of type struct pwm_chip *.
> 
> So consistently use the same and non-conflicting name "pc".

The intention is fine, but you missed a few instances that are named
"vt8500". The statistic in mainline looks as follows:

	$ git grep -o -h -E 'struct vt8500_chip \*[a-zA-Z0-9_]*' linus/master drivers/pwm/pwm-vt8500.c | sort | uniq -c
	      2 struct vt8500_chip *chip
	      5 struct vt8500_chip *vt8500

(So there 2 variabled named "chip" (that you renamed to "pc") and 5 that
are named "vt8500". I prefer to rename the "chip"s to "vt8500".

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |