On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 11:10:32AM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > Hi, > > On 25/05/17 15:18, Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 03:43:16PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > > > Now that some functions that deal with arch topology information live > > > under drivers, there is a clash of naming that might create confusion. > > > > > > Tidy things up by creating a drivers namespace for interfaces used by > > > arch code; achieve this by prepending a 'atd_' (arch topology driver) > > > prefix to driver interfaces. > > > > No one knows, nor will they ever remember, what "atd_" means :( > > > > Naming is hard, I know, here's my suggestion: > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/arch_topology.h b/include/linux/arch_topology.h > > > index 4edae9fe8cdd..e25458d7ee9a 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/arch_topology.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/arch_topology.h > > > @@ -4,14 +4,14 @@ > > > #ifndef _LINUX_ARCH_TOPOLOGY_H_ > > > #define _LINUX_ARCH_TOPOLOGY_H_ > > > > > > -void normalize_cpu_capacity(void); > > > +void atd_normalize_cpu_capacity(void); > > > > arch_cpu_normalize_capacity(); > > or > > cpu_normalize_capacity(); > > > > Why do you care if this is "arch" or not, of course it's arch-specific > > in a way, right? > > > > > > > > struct device_node; > > > -int parse_cpu_capacity(struct device_node *cpu_node, int cpu); > > > +int atd_parse_cpu_capacity(struct device_node *cpu_node, int cpu); > > > > cpu_parse_capacity(); > > > > > struct sched_domain; > > > -unsigned long arch_scale_cpu_capacity(struct sched_domain *sd, int cpu); > > > +unsigned long atd_scale_cpu_capacity(struct sched_domain *sd, int cpu); > > > > cpu_scale_capacity(); > > > > > -void set_capacity_scale(unsigned int cpu, unsigned long capacity); > > > +void atd_set_capacity_scale(unsigned int cpu, unsigned long capacity); > > > > wait, where did the cpu go? This doesn't make much sense, these are all > > "capacity" issues, right? If so, then these should be: > > capacity_normalize_cpu() > > capacity_parse_cpu() > > capacity_scale_cpu() > > capacity_set_scale() > > > > But this is all really topology stuff, right? Why use "capacity" at > > all: > > topology_normalize_cpu() > > topology_parse_cpu() > > topology_scale_cpu() > > topology_set_scale() > > ? > > > > It's always best to put the "subsystem" name first, we have a bad > > history of getting this wrong in the past by putting the verb first, not > > the noun. > > > > topology_ works for me. However, I'd keep "capacity" in the names, as we > might need to topology_normalize_cpu_somethingelse() (etc.) in the > future? Worry about the future, in the future. Change the names then, _IF_ it becomes an issue. Try to be short and simple please. > Updated patch follows. I kept Catalin and Russell's acks as I only > renamed the functions, please shout if that's not OK. > > Greg, if you are fine with this approach, do you still want a complete > v5 of the set or can you pick this up? Am I the one who is supposed to take all of these arm-specific patches? If so, that's fine, but I need to have acks from the arm maintainers... Oh, and drop "capacity" please :) thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
