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=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_PASS 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 53D3AC4360F for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 21:08:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CBDC206B7 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 21:08:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org header.i=@chromium.org header.b="oW5H4DD+" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726568AbfDCVIz (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Apr 2019 17:08:55 -0400 Received: from mail-vs1-f66.google.com ([209.85.217.66]:37526 "EHLO mail-vs1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726099AbfDCVIz (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Apr 2019 17:08:55 -0400 Received: by mail-vs1-f66.google.com with SMTP id w13so66757vsc.4 for ; Wed, 03 Apr 2019 14:08:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=dUmBJWqO62UFdWqTqgDAL/OAcgHOw4NaLhjkbb1riwc=; b=oW5H4DD+BHdgOkrvB4go1u/qrjq0xcNUrai71mjD2+BYVnXgg5Sh6OzQyjzuuvUjCC tDl9tl1xTLM7EzoihkeRVhe0s/roxN+7Tk4WwizzI+KMUUQySG/FArwNLZFLlRbRy877 QniRopnDKYRRSfvTUqJxkNuVSYG1vWrYrCjls= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=dUmBJWqO62UFdWqTqgDAL/OAcgHOw4NaLhjkbb1riwc=; b=XJ07fZjoC6Ef9Bd2Uzn+Ye7y088BigrAiq3ugwf9EPI5ptlophQRvYNmSetmgxf/lx RH7TKh+fxZYyUrixCstpHbdCWx7zX59O8hnKKfTX8JbS2XBaXDLYpsdv0H0mdurjYJM+ uXVeImquj7ynOiYJ8dLv4Wgi0jZwOH0TcQyAt0t37XsEzNXGkl3T7UKZOpZcpMUf1Vab HKORmU2Bj2h0PKjW7w/2RV2+OEQa0hDQfrugRDzZ499oGC9rIZOpLXzi1xlTKSCJs02J Z5cWfsI5la8ZowIO5i3P9MbjFCQq55keA9f9RK1Ut3IXkmOGLcHLFG+9UmSGAIjHxfyf 8pJQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVWQmIta+eo4EObYVY0GrrK22o+yF0zKcnrRWnMXYnhLceosWPF PbGe8MiKJ38FjGW8TIrtWY9lkuNWSSs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzpQnC2Klc8uO+StThgK9Ex2qkNXb7yKINOawDKs7hpje59JsbVnyh0oogigfz3cFJqCa16bA== X-Received: by 2002:a67:b44c:: with SMTP id c12mr1843190vsm.169.1554325733811; Wed, 03 Apr 2019 14:08:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vk1-f180.google.com (mail-vk1-f180.google.com. [209.85.221.180]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l143sm5265913vke.46.2019.04.03.14.08.52 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 03 Apr 2019 14:08:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vk1-f180.google.com with SMTP id d15so131476vka.8 for ; Wed, 03 Apr 2019 14:08:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:ac5:c2cb:: with SMTP id i11mr1711223vkk.51.1554325732106; Wed, 03 Apr 2019 14:08:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190403203137.203582-1-dianders@chromium.org> <20190403210436.GS112750@google.com> In-Reply-To: <20190403210436.GS112750@google.com> From: Doug Anderson Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 14:08:40 -0700 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] platform/chrome: cros_ec_spi: Transfer messages at high priority To: Matthias Kaehlcke 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 , =?UTF-8?Q?Heiko_St=C3=BCbner?= , LKML Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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? ...so unless someone else thinks the name should change or you feel strongly about it I won't plan to change the name. Thanks! -Doug