Re: [PATCH v4 8/8] arm,arm64,drivers: add a prefix to drivers arch_topology interfaces

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 11:10:32AM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:

Hi,

On 25/05/17 15:18, Greg KH wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 03:43:16PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:

quoted

Now that some functions that deal with arch topology information live
under drivers, there is a clash of naming that might create confusion.

Tidy things up by creating a drivers namespace for interfaces used by
arch code; achieve this by prepending a 'atd_' (arch topology driver)
prefix to driver interfaces.

No one knows, nor will they ever remember, what "atd_" means :(

Naming is hard, I know, here's my suggestion:

quoted

diff --git a/include/linux/arch_topology.h b/include/linux/arch_topology.h
index 4edae9fe8cdd..e25458d7ee9a 100644
--- a/include/linux/arch_topology.h
+++ b/include/linux/arch_topology.h

@@ -4,14 +4,14 @@
 #ifndef _LINUX_ARCH_TOPOLOGY_H_
 #define _LINUX_ARCH_TOPOLOGY_H_
 
-void normalize_cpu_capacity(void);
+void atd_normalize_cpu_capacity(void);

arch_cpu_normalize_capacity();
or
cpu_normalize_capacity();

Why do you care if this is "arch" or not, of course it's arch-specific
in a way, right?

quoted

 
 struct device_node;
-int parse_cpu_capacity(struct device_node *cpu_node, int cpu);
+int atd_parse_cpu_capacity(struct device_node *cpu_node, int cpu);

cpu_parse_capacity();

quoted

 struct sched_domain;
-unsigned long arch_scale_cpu_capacity(struct sched_domain *sd, int cpu);
+unsigned long atd_scale_cpu_capacity(struct sched_domain *sd, int cpu);

cpu_scale_capacity();

quoted

-void set_capacity_scale(unsigned int cpu, unsigned long capacity);
+void atd_set_capacity_scale(unsigned int cpu, unsigned long capacity);

wait, where did the cpu go?  This doesn't make much sense, these are all
"capacity" issues, right?  If so, then these should be:
	capacity_normalize_cpu()
	capacity_parse_cpu()
	capacity_scale_cpu()
	capacity_set_scale()

But this is all really topology stuff, right?  Why use "capacity" at
all:
	topology_normalize_cpu()
	topology_parse_cpu()
	topology_scale_cpu()
	topology_set_scale()
?

It's always best to put the "subsystem" name first, we have a bad
history of getting this wrong in the past by putting the verb first, not
the noun.

topology_ works for me. However, I'd keep "capacity" in the names, as we
might need to topology_normalize_cpu_somethingelse() (etc.) in the
future?

Worry about the future, in the future.  Change the names then, _IF_ it
becomes an issue.  Try to be short and simple please.

Updated patch follows. I kept Catalin and Russell's acks as I only
renamed the functions, please shout if that's not OK.

Greg, if you are fine with this approach, do you still want a complete
v5 of the set or can you pick this up?

Am I the one who is supposed to take all of these arm-specific patches?
If so, that's fine, but I need to have acks from the arm maintainers...

Oh, and drop "capacity" please :)

thanks,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html