Hi, On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 9:15 PM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > int rpmh_flush(struct rpmh_ctrlr *ctrlr) > > This function name keeps throwing me off. Can we please call it > something like rpmh_configure_tcs_sleep_wake()? The word "flush" seems > to imply there's some sort of cache going on, but that's not really the > case. We're programming a couple TCS FIFOs so that they can be used > across deep CPU sleep states. I'm hoping this rename can be deferred until Maulik's series and my cleanup series land. While I agree that rpmh_flush() is a bit of a confusing name, it's not a new name and renaming it midway through when there are a bunch of patches in-flight is going to be a hassle. Assuming others agree, my thought is that Maulik will do one more v17 spin with small nits fixed up, then his series can land early next week when (presumably) -rc1 comes out. If my current cleanup doesn't apply cleanly (or if Bjorn/Andy don't want to fix the two nits in commit messages when applying) I can repost my series and that can land in short order. Once those land: * Maulik can post this rpmh_flush() rename atop. * I can post the patch to remove the "pm_lock" that was introduced in this series. A preview at <https://crrev.com/c/2142823>. * Maulik can post some of the cleanups that Maulik wanted to do in rpmh.c with regards to __fill_rpmh_msg() ...assuming those are not controversial perhaps they can be reviewed quickly and land quickly? I suppose I can always dream... -Doug
