From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
peterz@infradead.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, linux@arm.linux.org.uk,
sudeep.holla@arm.com, lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com,
morten.rasmussen@arm.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
broonie@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 8/8] arm,arm64,drivers: add a prefix to drivers arch_topology interfaces
Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 15:18:02 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170525131802.GE16244@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170420144316.15632-9-juri.lelli@arm.com>
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 03:43:16PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Now that some functions that deal with arch topology information live
> under drivers, there is a clash of naming that might create confusion.
>
> Tidy things up by creating a drivers namespace for interfaces used by
> arch code; achieve this by prepending a 'atd_' (arch topology driver)
> prefix to driver interfaces.
No one knows, nor will they ever remember, what "atd_" means :(
Naming is hard, I know, here's my suggestion:
> diff --git a/include/linux/arch_topology.h b/include/linux/arch_topology.h
> index 4edae9fe8cdd..e25458d7ee9a 100644
> --- a/include/linux/arch_topology.h
> +++ b/include/linux/arch_topology.h
> @@ -4,14 +4,14 @@
> #ifndef _LINUX_ARCH_TOPOLOGY_H_
> #define _LINUX_ARCH_TOPOLOGY_H_
>
> -void normalize_cpu_capacity(void);
> +void atd_normalize_cpu_capacity(void);
arch_cpu_normalize_capacity();
or
cpu_normalize_capacity();
Why do you care if this is "arch" or not, of course it's arch-specific
in a way, right?
>
> struct device_node;
> -int parse_cpu_capacity(struct device_node *cpu_node, int cpu);
> +int atd_parse_cpu_capacity(struct device_node *cpu_node, int cpu);
cpu_parse_capacity();
> struct sched_domain;
> -unsigned long arch_scale_cpu_capacity(struct sched_domain *sd, int cpu);
> +unsigned long atd_scale_cpu_capacity(struct sched_domain *sd, int cpu);
cpu_scale_capacity();
> -void set_capacity_scale(unsigned int cpu, unsigned long capacity);
> +void atd_set_capacity_scale(unsigned int cpu, unsigned long capacity);
wait, where did the cpu go? This doesn't make much sense, these are all
"capacity" issues, right? If so, then these should be:
capacity_normalize_cpu()
capacity_parse_cpu()
capacity_scale_cpu()
capacity_set_scale()
But this is all really topology stuff, right? Why use "capacity" at
all:
topology_normalize_cpu()
topology_parse_cpu()
topology_scale_cpu()
topology_set_scale()
?
It's always best to put the "subsystem" name first, we have a bad
history of getting this wrong in the past by putting the verb first, not
the noun.
thanks,
greg k-h
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-25 13:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-20 14:43 [PATCH v4 0/8] Fix issues and factorize arm/arm64 capacity information code Juri Lelli
2017-04-20 14:43 ` [PATCH v4 1/8] Documentation: arm: fix wrong reference number in DT definition Juri Lelli
2017-04-20 14:43 ` [PATCH v4 2/8] Documentation/ABI: add information about cpu_capacity Juri Lelli
2017-04-20 14:43 ` [PATCH v4 3/8] arm: fix return value of parse_cpu_capacity Juri Lelli
2017-04-20 14:50 ` Vincent Guittot
2017-04-20 14:43 ` [PATCH v4 4/8] arm: remove wrong CONFIG_PROC_SYSCTL ifdef Juri Lelli
2017-04-20 14:43 ` [PATCH v4 5/8] arm, arm64: factorize common cpu capacity default code Juri Lelli
2017-05-25 13:12 ` Greg KH
2017-04-20 14:43 ` [PATCH v4 6/8] arm,arm64,drivers: reduce scope of cap_parsing_failed Juri Lelli
2017-05-25 13:13 ` Greg KH
2017-04-20 14:43 ` [PATCH v4 7/8] arm,arm64,drivers: move externs in a new header file Juri Lelli
2017-05-25 13:13 ` Greg KH
2017-04-20 14:43 ` [PATCH v4 8/8] arm,arm64,drivers: add a prefix to drivers arch_topology interfaces Juri Lelli
2017-05-25 13:18 ` Greg KH [this message]
2017-05-26 10:10 ` Juri Lelli
2017-05-26 18:36 ` Greg KH
2017-05-29 9:20 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2017-05-29 9:58 ` Greg KH
2017-05-29 10:46 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2017-05-30 14:59 ` Juri Lelli
2017-05-11 8:48 ` [PATCH v4 0/8] Fix issues and factorize arm/arm64 capacity information code Juri Lelli
2017-05-11 8:59 ` Greg KH
2017-05-11 10:27 ` Juri Lelli
2017-05-24 14:45 ` Juri Lelli
2017-05-25 13:18 ` Greg KH
2017-05-25 13:30 ` Juri Lelli
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170525131802.GE16244@kroah.com \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox