On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 02:08:40PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 2:04 PM Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > +static int cros_ec_xfer_high_pri(struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev, > > > > nit: the fact that a high priority workqueue is used is an > > implementation detail, since the driver has no function to perform a > > transfer with 'normal'/low priority there is no need to distinguish > > between the two cases. In this sense I'd be inclined to remove the > > 'high_pri' from the function names. > > > > Sorry for not mentioning this earlier, I focussed on other > > details, anyway it's just a nit. > > I still kinda like having the "high_pri" in there since the point of > this function is to transfer the work onto the high priority > workqueue. It's not an exported function so having the implementation > detail leak into the name isn't a bad thing, is it? IMO the long name with details mostly irrelevant to the caller (they want to do a 'normal' transfer, the function should do the right thing to get that done) is more distracting than helpful. But yeah, this is definitely 'nit/bikeshed' territory ;-) > ...so unless someone else thinks the name should change or you feel > strongly about it I won't plan to change the name. no strong feelings on my side, just wanted to mention it. _______________________________________________ Linux-rockchip mailing list Linux-rockchip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
