On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 at 09:58, Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Ulf, > > > > To make it unambiguous that mmc_hw_reset() is for cards and not for > > > controllers, we a) add 'card' to the function name and b) make the > > > function argument mmc_card instead of mmc_host. A fallback is provided > > > until all users are converted. > > > > In my opinion, I think b) is sufficient and would be a nice improvement. > > If you say so... but I do wonder why we can't be super clear with the > function name alone without the function argument as an additional > source of information? Kernel hacking is complicated enough. > > > In this regard, I suggest we make one big cross-subsystem patch (the > > smallest change as possible) then I can pick it up and send it for the > > v5.18-rc2. > > Ok, I can prepare this. Great! > > > > -static void mmc_hw_reset_for_init(struct mmc_host *host) > > > +/* we can't use mmc_card as a parameter, it is not populated yet */ > > > > Please drop this. The function is internal/static and at least to me, > > rather self-explanatory. > > All other ?w_reset() functions have a card as a parameter. For people > trying to get into the MMC core, this comment might be helpful to > understand the anomaly? I know that you as the maintainer do know this > by heart, this comment is meant for people learning the stuff. I understand your point, however I don't think it makes much sense to try to clarify the names on mmc_hw|sw_reset() alone. There are simply lots of other functions that then would need to be changed too. Otherwise we would just end up with having even more in-consistency in function namings. To me, that's even worse. > > All the best, > > Wolfram Kind regards Uffe
