On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 at 14:13, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2022-07-12 17:36, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > [...] > >>> If we have decied to call this arm_system_pmu, (which I am perfectly > >>> happy with), could we please stick to that name for functions that we > >>> export ? > >>> > >>> e.g, > >>> s/coresight_pmu_sysfs_event_show/arm_system_pmu_event_show()/ > >>> > >> > >> Just want to confirm, is it just the public functions or do we need to replace > >> all that has "coresight" naming ? Including the static functions, structs, filename. > > > > I think all references to "coresight" should be changed to "arm_system_pmu", > > including filenames. That way there is no doubt this IP block is not > > related, and does not interoperate, with the any of the "coresight" IP blocks > > already supported[1] in the kernel. > > > > I have looked at the documentation[2] in the cover letter and I agree > > with an earlier comment from Sudeep that this IP has very little to do with any > > of the other CoreSight IP blocks found in the CoreSight framework[1]. Using the > > "coresight" naming convention in this driver would be _extremely_ confusing, > > especially when it comes to exported functions. > > But conversely, how is it not confusing to make up completely different > names for things than what they're actually called? The CoreSight > Performance Monitoring Unit is a part of the Arm CoreSight architecture, > it says it right there on page 1. What if I instinctively associate the > name Mathieu with someone more familiar to me, so to avoid confusion I'd > prefer to call you Steve? Is that OK? > Not sure how the above helps moving the conversation forward. > As it happens, Steve, I do actually agree with you that "coresight_" is > a bad prefix here, but only for the reason that it's too general. TBH I > think that's true of the existing Linux subsystem too, but that damage > is already done, and I'd concur that there's little value in trying to > unpick that now, despite the clear existence of products like CoreSight > DAP and CoreSight ELA which don't have all that much to do with program > trace either. > Happy to see that we are in complete agreement. > However, hindsight and inertia are hardly good reasons to double down on > poor decisions, so if I was going to vote for anything here it would be > "cspmu_", which is about as > obviously-related-to-the-thing-it-actually-is as we can get while also > being pleasantly concise. > > [ And no, this isn't bikeshedding. Naming things right is *important* ] > > Cheers, > Robin. > > > > > Thanks, > > Steve > > > > [1]. drivers/hwtracing/coresight/ > > [2]. https://developer.arm.com/documentation/ihi0091/latest
