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