Hi Doug, Thanks for sending this patch upstream. On 3/4/19 23:19, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > 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. > Tested on veyron-jaq, veyron-minnie and peach-pi (well with peach-pi I didn't reproduce the issue but at least I know doesn't breaks anything) I'll add this patch to the chrome-platform for-next branch for the auto-builders to play with and launch some few more automated tests. If all goes well I'll queue this patch to chrome-platform-5.2. Thanks, Enric _______________________________________________ Linux-rockchip mailing list Linux-rockchip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
