libata: rename ATA_PROT_ATAPI_* to ATAPI_PROT_*

ATA_PROT_ATAPI_* are ugly and naming schemes between ATA_PROT_* and
ATA_PROT_ATAPI_* are inconsistent causing confusion.  Rename them to
ATAPI_PROT_* and make them consistent with ATA counterpart.

Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@redhat.com>

1 files changed, 4 insertions, 4 deletions

diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-eh.c b/drivers/ata/libata-eh.c
index 1bc1acf3bbbb..419552603a16 100644
--- a/drivers/ata/libata-eh.c
+++ b/drivers/ata/libata-eh.c
@@ -1299,10 +1299,10 @@ static unsigned int atapi_eh_request_sense(struct ata_queued_cmd *qc)
 
         /* is it pointless to prefer PIO for "safety reasons"? */
         if (ap->flags & ATA_FLAG_PIO_DMA) {
-                tf.protocol = ATA_PROT_ATAPI_DMA;
+                tf.protocol = ATAPI_PROT_DMA;
                 tf.feature |= ATAPI_PKT_DMA;
         } else {
-                tf.protocol = ATA_PROT_ATAPI;
+                tf.protocol = ATAPI_PROT_PIO;
                 tf.lbam = SCSI_SENSE_BUFFERSIZE;
                 tf.lbah = 0;
         }
@@ -1979,8 +1979,8 @@ static void ata_eh_link_report(struct ata_link *link)
                                 [ATA_PROT_PIO]          = "pio",
                                 [ATA_PROT_DMA]          = "dma",
                                 [ATA_PROT_NCQ]          = "ncq",
-                                [ATA_PROT_ATAPI]        = "pio",
-                                [ATA_PROT_ATAPI_DMA]    = "dma",
+                                [ATAPI_PROT_PIO]        = "pio",
+                                [ATAPI_PROT_DMA]        = "dma",
                         };
 
                         snprintf(data_buf, sizeof(data_buf), " %s %u %s",