On 09/08/2016 01:02 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2016, loic pallardy wrote:
On 09/08/2016 10:48 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, Loic Pallardy wrote:
This patch proposes diverse updates to rproc_update_resource_table_entry
function:
- rename rproc_update_resource_table_entry to __update_rsc_tbl_entry to
have shorter function name.
- add RSC_VDEV support
- add force mode resource even if resource already fixed on firmware side.
Signed-off-by: Loic Pallardy <loic.pallardy@xxxxxx>
---
drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
index 30e9c70..aff1a00 100644
--- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
+++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
@@ -1027,13 +1027,15 @@ static int __verify_rsc_tbl_entry(struct rproc *rproc,
return -EINVAL;
}
-static int rproc_update_resource_table_entry(struct rproc *rproc,
+static int __update_rsc_tbl_entry(struct rproc *rproc,
Unless the name is unruly, (which I don't think it is, you're still
having to line wrap at the call site), I tend to go for clarity over
brevity.
It was only to have reasonable line length. I can keept original name and
see impact on rest of the code.
Reasonable line length is 80. This line was 65.
This line yes. Name change proposal is to reduce line where this
function is called (in rproc_apply_resource_overrides for exemple)
But OK to keep standard rproc_xxx naming
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-remoteproc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
