>>> +int q6apm_read(struct q6apm_graph *graph)
>>> +{
>>> + struct data_cmd_rd_sh_mem_ep_data_buffer_v2 *read;
>>> + struct audioreach_graph_data *port;
>>> + struct audio_buffer *ab;
>>> + struct gpr_pkt *pkt;
>>> + int rc, iid;
>>> +
>>> + iid = q6apm_graph_get_tx_shmem_module_iid(graph);
>>> + pkt = audioreach_alloc_pkt(sizeof(*read),
>>> DATA_CMD_RD_SH_MEM_EP_DATA_BUFFER_V2,
>>> + graph->tx_data.dsp_buf, graph->port->id, iid);
>>> + if (IS_ERR(pkt))
>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>> +
>>> + read = (void *)pkt + GPR_HDR_SIZE;
>>
>> same nit-pick on variable naming, with the additional present/past
>> grammar issue that you don't know if it's a read buffer or a pointer to
>> data read in the past.
>>
>
> do you think adding "_cmd" suffix like read_cmd would make more sense?
My personal preference is read_buffer or write_buffer, less ambiguous
than 'read' or 'write'.
I've started cracking down on the use of 'stream' for a similar reason,
at some point no one know what the code/variables represent.
