On 11 November 2014 23:24, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tuesday 11 November 2014 23:09:16 Jassi Brar wrote: >> On 11 November 2014 22:03, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Tuesday 11 November 2014 19:27:07 Jassi Brar wrote: >> >> On 11 November 2014 18:32, Ashwin Chaugule <ashwin.chaugule@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > On 10 November 2014 23:04, Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> In even simpler terms.... I prefer controller specific >> >> encoding(0x50434300) instead of controller specific api >> >> (pcc_mbox_request_channel). For a different class of controller, it >> >> is much cleaner to define a new encoding as compared to another >> >> xyz_mbox_request_channel() api. >> > >> > The problem with this approach is that it still leaves the interface >> > as controller specific, because the client now has to know that it >> > must pass the PCC identifier instead of an index. >> > >> Yup. I hope you are aware that the "index" argument of >> pcc_mbox_request_channel() is just the same thing. The "index" there >> is actually the 'Type' value defined in ACPI for the client. > > The problem is that it's not an index relative to the client, but > into an array of the mailbox provide. I only today noticed that both > are called 'index' in the source code, which is highly confusing, > and the pcc driver should name it 'subspaceid' or similar instead, > to minimize the confusion. > OK. Ashwin, would you fix the name and resubmit. Or I do s/index/subspace_id/ before committing? Arnd, Could I please have your Reviewed/Acked-by? Thanks Jassi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
