05.08.2021 12:17, Linus Walleij пишет: > On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 3:35 AM Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 04.08.2021 18:34, Linus Walleij пишет: >>> + bool tested_board_variant; >> >> What about s/tested/tried/? > > OK that is clearer, I fix! > >>> -static void brcmf_fw_request_done(const struct firmware *fw, void *ctx) >>> +static void brcmf_fw_request_done_first(const struct firmware *fw, void *ctx) >> >> Is it really worthwhile to rename this function? There is no "done_second". > > It is to reflect the actual use, because it fooled me as it could > be interpreted (intuitively) as "this is called when all firmware requests > are done" since it doesn't specify. But that is not the case, it is > only called when done with the first first firmware in the list. > Hence the name change. AFAICS, it's called for both first and when done. > The philosophy is in line with Rusty Russell's API design hierarchy: > http://sweng.the-davies.net/Home/rustys-api-design-manifesto Why you can't split that function in two then? brcmf_fw_request_done_first() { if (!fw) { request_firmware_nowait(THIS_MODULE, true, first->path, fwctx->dev, GFP_KERNEL, fwctx, brcmf_fw_request_done); } else { brcmf_fw_request_done(); } }
