From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: akpm@linux-foundation.org (Andrew Morton) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 22:41:18 -0700 Subject: [PATCH v7 01/10] counter: Introduce the Generic Counter interface In-Reply-To: <20180721162610.GA15622@sophia> References: <51b75b2b4495d4ad7ed173d91a726379bdae2353.1529607879.git.vilhelm.gray@gmail.com> <20180717204954.4b5e371603d0b40b2aaabbb8@linux-foundation.org> <20180721162610.GA15622@sophia> Message-ID: <20180721224118.ff26734be0f5db552afcbe7c@linux-foundation.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 12:26:10 -0400 William Breathitt Gray wrote: > >Also, many many drivers deal with signals-as-an-electrical-thing - is > >it appropriate for this particular driver to take that namespace? > > In the context of the Generic Counter paradigm, a "Signal" is an > abstraction for the stream of data that is fed to the counter device for > evaluation (triggering updates for the readable "Count"). In many cases > a "Signal" correlates with a physical electrical line (for example the A > and B electrical lines for a quadrature encoder), but this isn't a hard > requirement as the paradigm permits more abstract data streams. > > I decided on "Signal" to match the naming convention that appears in the > datasheets of many counter devices, but "Line" may be a decent > alternative name we could use to indicate a counter device input data > stream. > > I'd like to get some other opinions as well before I make a naming > change to "Signal" -- whether to stay with "Signal," switch to "Line," or > rename to something else. For what it's worth, I think it's unlikely for > a counter device driver author to confuse a Counter Signal with the > Linux OS signal within the context of the Generic Counter paradigm and > their respective counter device datasheet. gc_signal_* would be better. That retains "signal", but makes it clear that the symbols belong to generic counter.