On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 2:55 AM Sunil V L <sunilvl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 12:09:05PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > On Feb 14 2022, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > > > > > On 2/14/22 11:15, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > >> On Feb 14 2022, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > > >> > > >>> set_boot_hartid() implies that the caller can change the boot hart ID. > > >>> As this is not a case this name obviously would be a misnomer. > > >> > > >> initialize_boot_hartid would fit better. > > >> > > > > > > Another misnomer. > > > > But the best fit so far. > > Can we use the name init_boot_hartid_from_fdt()? While I understand > Heinrich's point, I think since we have "_from_fdt", this may be fine. > init_boot_hartid_from_fdt or parse_boot_hartid_from_fdt are definitely much better than the current one. > I didn't rename the function since it was not recommended to do multiple > things in a "Fix" patch. If we can consider this as not very serious > issue which needs a "Fix" patch, then I can combine this patch with the > RISCV_EFI_BOOT_PROTOCOL patch series. > IMHO, it is okay to include this in the RISCV_EFI_BOOT_PROTOCOL series as we are not going to have hartid U32_MAX in a few months :) > Hi Ard, let me know your suggestion on how to proceed with this. > > Thanks > Sunil > > > > -- > > Andreas Schwab, schwab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > GPG Key fingerprint = 7578 EB47 D4E5 4D69 2510 2552 DF73 E780 A9DA AEC1 > > "And now for something completely different." -- Regards, Atish
