Search Linux Wireless

Re: [PATCH 1/2] brcmfmac: rename brcmf_bus_start function to brcmf_attach_phase2

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 18 January 2017 at 10:25, Arend Van Spriel
<arend.vanspriel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 17-1-2017 20:23, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> This change intends to make init/attach process easier to follow.
>>
>> What driver were doing in brcmf_bus_start wasn't bus specific at all and
>> function brcmf_bus_stop wasn't undoing things done there. It seems
>> brcmf_detach was actually undoing things done in both: brcmf_attach and
>> brcmf_bus_start.
>>
>> To me it makes more sense to call these two function in a similar way as
>> they both handle some part of attaching process. It also makes
>> brcmf_detach more meaningful.
>
> To me this is all bike-shedding and I have two options 1) what's in a
> name and let it pass, or 2) explain the naming. Let's try option 2). It
> seems your expectation was different because of the name
> brcmf_*bus*_start(). The function brcmf_attach() is called by
> bus-specific code, ie. sdio, pcie, or usb, to instantiate the common
> driver structures and essential common facilities, eg. debugfs, and
> brcmf_bus_start() is called by bus-specific code when everything is
> ready for use. For PCIe there is nothing between those calls but for
> SDIO there are several steps before the party can start, hence the name.

Sorry you find this cleanup try this way. If you still have some
patience for this /silly/ stuff, I've one more question.

So as you noticed (and confirmed my note) both: brcmf_attach and
brcmf_bus_start are called from bus specific code. They initialize
some *common* stuff. How did you come with the "brcmf_bus_start" name
then?
1) It's called after bus got initialized (started?)
2) It's initializes common stuff
3) It doesn't execute bus specific code

My point is "brcmf_bus_start" name doesn't seem to make much sense. If
you have any better suggestion than "brcmf_bus_start" and
"brcmf_attach_phase2", I'll be happy to use it. What could it be?
brcmf_attach_after_bus_started would be more accurate but too long.

-- 
Rafał




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Host AP]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Wireless Personal Area Network]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Kernel]     [IDE]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]

  Powered by Linux