Hi,
On 4/10/2020 8:22 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
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
Agree, I can defer rename until this series lands and then post above
listed changes.
Thanks,
Maulik
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
