From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 4/5] i2c: aspeed: added driver for Aspeed I2C Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 12:21:04 +1000 Message-ID: <1493086864.25766.266.camel@kernel.crashing.org> References: <20170424181818.2754-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> <20170424181818.2754-5-brendanhiggins@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170424181818.2754-5-brendanhiggins@google.com> Sender: linux-i2c-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Brendan Higgins , wsa@the-dreams.de, robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, jason@lakedaemon.net, marc.zyngier@arm.com, joel@jms.id.au, vz@mleia.com, mouse@mayc.ru, clg@kaod.org Cc: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2017-04-24 at 11:18 -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote: > +static int __aspeed_i2c_init_clk(struct aspeed_i2c_bus *bus, > +                                struct platform_device *pdev) > +{ Minor nit ... I'm really not fan of those underscores. We use __ functions in some cases in the kernel for low level helpers, usually when it's a low level variant of an existing function or an "unlocked" variant, but I don't think generalizing it to pretty much everything in the driver is worthwhile here. If you want to be explicit about locking, I would suggest you use a comment in front of the function explaining if it expects to be called with the lock held. We tend to only do that when *both* functions exist and one is implemented in term of the other. Cheers, Ben.