From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90DE7C4360F for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 21:19:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59C70206BA for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 21:19:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org header.i=@chromium.org header.b="PRCUg5e3" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726329AbfDCVTp (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Apr 2019 17:19:45 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-f194.google.com ([209.85.210.194]:43664 "EHLO mail-pf1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726064AbfDCVTo (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Apr 2019 17:19:44 -0400 Received: by mail-pf1-f194.google.com with SMTP id c8so197156pfd.10 for ; Wed, 03 Apr 2019 14:19:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=AWnvT+zVoOgf5czsOtHLdOl/gEnaW/0oyXSc96bZjOI=; b=PRCUg5e3QjggFcZZQMqeQmU+O1V53EHQK5rg3QMl+c2IfqwAlnAnLqSx4zBIaZdT2w NZpMVy1tfhvYd2HIX4sBHzuohhIxApbo18qaZMtIr92AFgYzy/SY7k8sl4dRcSqVXYOh HtzcQq13U3GKoUDrzQhh0/toLIifZCYs+RyyU= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=AWnvT+zVoOgf5czsOtHLdOl/gEnaW/0oyXSc96bZjOI=; b=XjbSLJ+anSRJxwRLVtumPgE0S+28js7Bfj1EFN1+ThDOi+fnfbQRI6fwSUtH5h1bU5 wG7+3uFRs/cCu1ZziJ+dcEyMx3n3PUIeWEKl0UwaoJ615F70GUN4q/HVluaj9IE0fFxv DKThUzSd22SHktpyzDOoYKg4mhVbvGKBDBwMj+eGUwr4YF88BTFVVFr1GaG8UmoRHrMJ KzEgPomCxHfBC33ga8X+gSzmB/Y8pvLJaxLxzfpf+5vBjUs3RUO2xXVVamW85kxkcaR/ aiVfl0ONqVhmIbYDINTGTUe4KXDRlINJr4SvzXoDMcnGXSMIoATdc1XLgCWEFAuftQsw HeUQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV/2EBjgMej8PWcaf6nNG4UCQswuRQzOVU7EfM+8Nn5+XaOx0rv Hng7YZAL6B058Of8IDCXCb8JvQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxl1Qj8CXFltxE+FsHMZKdwFmdwk8jHmxO3QYSbfgLqBKiILw+q2vfJUqsgQi6+ADyWkRCO0A== X-Received: by 2002:a63:fb16:: with SMTP id o22mr1770842pgh.209.1554326384090; Wed, 03 Apr 2019 14:19:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2620:15c:202:1:75a:3f6e:21d:9374]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v20sm25359838pfn.116.2019.04.03.14.19.43 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 03 Apr 2019 14:19:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 14:19:43 -0700 From: Matthias Kaehlcke To: Doug Anderson Cc: Benson Leung , Enric Balletbo i Serra , Alexandru M Stan , "open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." , Simon Glass , Brian Norris , Guenter Roeck , Mark Brown , Ryan Case , Randall Spangler , Heiko =?utf-8?Q?St=C3=BCbner?= , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] platform/chrome: cros_ec_spi: Transfer messages at high priority Message-ID: <20190403211943.GT112750@google.com> References: <20190403203137.203582-1-dianders@chromium.org> <20190403210436.GS112750@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 02:08:40PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 2:04 PM Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > > > +static int cros_ec_xfer_high_pri(struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev, > > > > nit: the fact that a high priority workqueue is used is an > > implementation detail, since the driver has no function to perform a > > transfer with 'normal'/low priority there is no need to distinguish > > between the two cases. In this sense I'd be inclined to remove the > > 'high_pri' from the function names. > > > > Sorry for not mentioning this earlier, I focussed on other > > details, anyway it's just a nit. > > I still kinda like having the "high_pri" in there since the point of > this function is to transfer the work onto the high priority > workqueue. It's not an exported function so having the implementation > detail leak into the name isn't a bad thing, is it? IMO the long name with details mostly irrelevant to the caller (they want to do a 'normal' transfer, the function should do the right thing to get that done) is more distracting than helpful. But yeah, this is definitely 'nit/bikeshed' territory ;-) > ...so unless someone else thinks the name should change or you feel > strongly about it I won't plan to change the name. no strong feelings on my side, just wanted to mention it.