From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Laurent Pinchart Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC v3 02/22] soc: renesas: Add R-Car RST driver Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:08:41 +0300 Message-ID: <1642491.VRMI5sK8yv@avalon> References: <1464808880-343-1-git-send-email-geert+renesas@glider.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-renesas-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Dirk Behme , Geert Uytterhoeven , Simon Horman , Magnus Damm , Laurent Pinchart , Philipp Zabel , Michael Turquette , Stephen Boyd , linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Friday 10 Jun 2016 09:58:28 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Dirk, > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Dirk Behme wrote: > >> +int __init rcar_rst_read_mode_pins(u32 *mode) > > > > Just a style issue: Is the string 'pins' in the function name still > > relevant? I.e. what's about just 'rcar_rst_read_mode()'? > > I feel "mode" is a too generic word for a public API. > It's used a several contexts inside the RST module (secure mode, 64-bit > addressing mode, free-running mode, step-up mode). If it's "pins" that bothers Dirk, how about rcar_rst_read_boot_mode() ? Or maybe rcar_rst_boot_mode(), given that the function caches the value, it doesn't read it every time. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart