Re: [PATCH 4/8] clk: Add test managed clk provider/consumer APIs

From: Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech>
To: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org,
	patches@lists.linux.dev,
	Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@linux.dev>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
	Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>,
	Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
	Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@axis.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
	Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@gmail.com>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-um@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] clk: Add test managed clk provider/consumer APIs
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2023 15:32:56 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230321143256.ybr6c6kstcv5lnbk@houat> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABVgOSk4gEob3rokKF_p2Bcd_Sj3ikUN4R-HPHyTR0Eoo==85g@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1994 bytes --]

On Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at 02:32:04PM +0800, David Gow wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-kunit.c b/drivers/clk/clk-kunit.c
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 000000000000..78d85b3a7a4a
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-kunit.c
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,204 @@
> > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * KUnit helpers for clk tests
> > > > + */
> > > > +#include <linux/clk.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/clk-provider.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/err.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/slab.h>
> > > > +
> > > > +#include <kunit/resource.h>
> > > > +
> > > > +#include "clk-kunit.h"
> > > > +
> > > > +static void kunit_clk_disable_unprepare(struct kunit_resource *res)
> > >
> > > We need to decide on the naming scheme of these, and in particular if
> > > they should be kunit_clk or clk_kunit (or something else).
> > >
> > > I'd lean to clk_kunit, if only to match DRM's KUnit helpers being
> > > drm_kunit_helper better, and so that these are more tightly bound to
> > > the subsystem being tested.
> > > (i.e., so I don't have to scroll through every subsystem's helpers
> > > when autocompleting kunit_).
> >
> > Ok, got it. I was trying to match kunit_kzalloc() style. It makes it
> > easy to slap the 'kunit_' prefix on existing auto-completed function
> > names like kzalloc() or clk_prepare_enable().
> 
> Yeah: my rule of thumb at the moment is to keep the kunit_ prefix for
> things which are generic across the whole kernel (and tend to be
> implemented in lib/kunit), and to use suffixes or infixes (whichever
> works best) for things which are subsystem-specific.

A suffix is kind of weird though when any other managed call is using a
prefix: devm is always using a prefix including for clocks, kunit for
some calls too (like kzalloc).

Having clk_get vs devm_clk_get vs clk_get_kunit would be very
inconsistent and throws me off completely :)

Maxime

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 152 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-um mailing list
linux-um@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um