On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 01:19:05PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 12:29:39AM +0300, Samuil Ivanov wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge.h b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge.h
> > index 6ec7e3ce3863..e9f1363c5bf2 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge.h
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge.h
> > @@ -2262,7 +2262,7 @@ int ql_write_mpi_reg(struct ql_adapter *qdev, u32 reg, u32 data);
> > int ql_unpause_mpi_risc(struct ql_adapter *qdev);
> > int ql_pause_mpi_risc(struct ql_adapter *qdev);
> > int ql_hard_reset_mpi_risc(struct ql_adapter *qdev);
> > -int ql_soft_reset_mpi_risc(struct ql_adapter *qdev);
> > +int qlge_soft_reset_mpi_risc(struct ql_adapter *qdev);
>
> The patch series doesn't change all the functions so now it's hodge
> podge.
>
> > int ql_dump_risc_ram_area(struct ql_adapter *qdev, void *buf, u32 ram_addr,
> > int word_count);
> > int ql_core_dump(struct ql_adapter *qdev, struct ql_mpi_coredump *mpi_coredump);
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_dbg.c b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_dbg.c
> > index 019b7e6a1b7a..df5344e113ca 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_dbg.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_dbg.c
> > @@ -1312,7 +1312,7 @@ void ql_get_dump(struct ql_adapter *qdev, void *buff)
> >
> > if (!test_bit(QL_FRC_COREDUMP, &qdev->flags)) {
> > if (!ql_core_dump(qdev, buff))
> > - ql_soft_reset_mpi_risc(qdev);
> > + qlge_soft_reset_mpi_risc(qdev);
> > else
> > netif_err(qdev, drv, qdev->ndev, "coredump failed!\n");
> > } else {
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_mpi.c b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_mpi.c
> > index 9e422bbbb6ab..efe893935929 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_mpi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_mpi.c
> > @@ -88,9 +88,10 @@ int ql_write_mpi_reg(struct ql_adapter *qdev, u32 reg, u32 data)
> > return status;
> > }
> >
> > -int ql_soft_reset_mpi_risc(struct ql_adapter *qdev)
> > +int qlge_soft_reset_mpi_risc(struct ql_adapter *qdev)
> > {
> > int status;
> > +
> > status = ql_write_mpi_reg(qdev, 0x00001010, 1);
>
> This white space change is unrelated.
>
> > return status;
> > }
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
Hello Dan and Greg,
Dan you are correct it is a bit of a hodge podge :)
I think that it is better to have a bigger patches that will rename
more functions, but I don't this it is good to have all the
functions renamed in one patch.
Just in the header file I counted around 55 function definitions,
and in the source files there are some more.
So that will make one huge patch.
And I am not sure if the maintainers will be OK with reviewing it.
So my sugestion is to have a bigger patches.
For example, one patch with 10 to 15 subpatches.
And one subpatch will rename one function and
update the occurrences in the driver.
This way with like 5 iterations all the functions will be renamed.
If you have a better solution please tell.
Grt,
Samuil
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
