Re: [PATCH 1/2] brcmfmac: rename brcmf_bus_start function to brcmf_attach_phase2

[Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>]

On 18-1-2017 10:51, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> On 18 January 2017 at 10:25, Arend Van Spriel
> <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com> wrote:
>> On 17-1-2017 20:23, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>>>
>>> This change intends to make init/attach process easier to follow.
>>>
>>> What driver were doing in brcmf_bus_start wasn't bus specific at all and
>>> function brcmf_bus_stop wasn't undoing things done there. It seems
>>> brcmf_detach was actually undoing things done in both: brcmf_attach and
>>> brcmf_bus_start.
>>>
>>> To me it makes more sense to call these two function in a similar way as
>>> they both handle some part of attaching process. It also makes
>>> brcmf_detach more meaningful.
>>
>> To me this is all bike-shedding and I have two options 1) what's in a
>> name and let it pass, or 2) explain the naming. Let's try option 2). It
>> seems your expectation was different because of the name
>> brcmf_*bus*_start(). The function brcmf_attach() is called by
>> bus-specific code, ie. sdio, pcie, or usb, to instantiate the common
>> driver structures and essential common facilities, eg. debugfs, and
>> brcmf_bus_start() is called by bus-specific code when everything is
>> ready for use. For PCIe there is nothing between those calls but for
>> SDIO there are several steps before the party can start, hence the name.
> 
> Sorry you find this cleanup try this way. If you still have some
> patience for this /silly/ stuff, I've one more question.
> 
> So as you noticed (and confirmed my note) both: brcmf_attach and
> brcmf_bus_start are called from bus specific code. They initialize
> some *common* stuff. How did you come with the "brcmf_bus_start" name
> then?
> 1) It's called after bus got initialized (started?)
> 2) It's initializes common stuff
> 3) It doesn't execute bus specific code
> 
> My point is "brcmf_bus_start" name doesn't seem to make much sense. If
> you have any better suggestion than "brcmf_bus_start" and
> "brcmf_attach_phase2", I'll be happy to use it. What could it be?
> brcmf_attach_after_bus_started would be more accurate but too long.

It is a signal given by bus specific code that common code can "start
using the bus" for communication with the device. Maybe
brcmf_bus_started() is more accurate. The fact that common code uses
that signal to execute more initialization stuff is irrelevant.

Regards,
Arend