From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S938332AbdEYNSQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 May 2017 09:18:16 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:41236 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933110AbdEYNSO (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 May 2017 09:18:14 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 15:18:02 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Juri Lelli 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 Message-ID: <20170525131802.GE16244@kroah.com> References: <20170420144316.15632-1-juri.lelli@arm.com> <20170420144316.15632-9-juri.lelli@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170420144316.15632-9-juri.lelli@arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.2 (2017-04-18) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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