From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Krzysztof Kozlowski Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] spi: spi-s3c64xx: Drop unused enable_datapath() function argument Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 12:51:21 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20180416154021.25626-1-s.nawrocki@samsung.com> <20180416154021.25626-3-s.nawrocki@samsung.com> <167c0f1a1a9de44574523c7f4a9d137d@etezian.org> <71b98ebb-550e-60af-36cb-0196cf738e54@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, =?UTF-8?B?QmFydMWCb21pZWogxbtvxYJuaWVya2lld2ljeg==?= , linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, broonie@kernel.org, kgene@kernel.org, Andi Shyti , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Marek Szyprowski To: Sylwester Nawrocki Return-path: In-Reply-To: <71b98ebb-550e-60af-36cb-0196cf738e54@samsung.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-spi.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: > Hi Andi, > > On 04/16/2018 09:09 PM, andi@etezian.org wrote: >> On 17.04.2018 00:40, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: >>> The spi pointer argument is not used now so remove it. While at it >>> s3c64xx_ prefix is added to the function name. >> >> These for me are two different patches, but in any case it's trivial >> so that I don't mind it too much. > > I am going to drop renaming from this patch. There are 2 more functions > (wait_for_pio(), wait_for_dma()) without prefix, should we rename them > too or rather leave all 3 as they are now? Indeed it is kind of mixed up - some purely local functions (not even passed through pointer to some ops) have prefix, some do not. If you ask me, I would prefer to have the prefix on all of them because: 1. If they appear in call trace (where backtrace pointers are not telling anything) it is easy to understand their location, 2. having generic name like "wait_for_dma" sounds for me like generic, Linux-wide macro (but it is not). However I do not insist on that. Best regards, Krzysztof From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: krzk@kernel.org (Krzysztof Kozlowski) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 12:51:21 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 3/6] spi: spi-s3c64xx: Drop unused enable_datapath() function argument In-Reply-To: <71b98ebb-550e-60af-36cb-0196cf738e54@samsung.com> References: <20180416154021.25626-1-s.nawrocki@samsung.com> <20180416154021.25626-3-s.nawrocki@samsung.com> <167c0f1a1a9de44574523c7f4a9d137d@etezian.org> <71b98ebb-550e-60af-36cb-0196cf738e54@samsung.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: > Hi Andi, > > On 04/16/2018 09:09 PM, andi at etezian.org wrote: >> On 17.04.2018 00:40, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: >>> The spi pointer argument is not used now so remove it. While at it >>> s3c64xx_ prefix is added to the function name. >> >> These for me are two different patches, but in any case it's trivial >> so that I don't mind it too much. > > I am going to drop renaming from this patch. There are 2 more functions > (wait_for_pio(), wait_for_dma()) without prefix, should we rename them > too or rather leave all 3 as they are now? Indeed it is kind of mixed up - some purely local functions (not even passed through pointer to some ops) have prefix, some do not. If you ask me, I would prefer to have the prefix on all of them because: 1. If they appear in call trace (where backtrace pointers are not telling anything) it is easy to understand their location, 2. having generic name like "wait_for_dma" sounds for me like generic, Linux-wide macro (but it is not). However I do not insist on that. Best regards, Krzysztof