On 18 January 2017 at 11:13, Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 18-1-2017 10:51, Rafał Miłecki wrote: >> 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. > > It is a signal given by bus specific code that common code can "start > using the bus" for communication with the device. Maybe > brcmf_bus_started() is more accurate. The fact that common code uses > that signal to execute more initialization stuff is irrelevant. Sounds OK to me! -- Rafał
