Messages in this thread | | | From | Alan Tull <> | Date | Tue, 19 Sep 2017 11:06:50 -0500 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 01/18] fpga: bridge: support getting bridge from device |
| |
On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 5:54 PM, Moritz Fischer <mdf@kernel.org> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 03:29:09PM -0700, matthew.gerlach@linux.intel.com wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Alan Tull wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 6:38 PM, <matthew.gerlach@linux.intel.com> wrote: >> > >> > Hi Matthew, >> > >> > > >> > > Hi Alan, >> > > >> > > Two minor nits below. >> > > >> > > Matthew Gerlach >> > > >> > > On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, Alan Tull wrote: >> > > >> > > > Add two functions for getting the FPGA bridge from the device >> > > > rather than device tree node. This is to enable writing code >> > > > that will support using FPGA bridges without device tree. >> > > > Rename one old function to make it clear that it is device >> > > > tree-ish. This leaves us with 3 functions for getting a bridge: >> > > > >> > > > * fpga_bridge_get >> > > > Get the bridge given the device. >> > > > >> > > > * fpga_bridges_get_to_list >> > > > Given the device, get the bridge and add it to a list. >> > > > >> > > > * of_fpga_bridges_get_to_list >> > > > Renamed from priviously existing fpga_bridges_get_to_list. >> > > > Given the device node, get the bridge and add it to a list. >> > > > >> > > > Signed-off-by: Alan Tull <atull@kernel.org> >> > > > --- >> > > > v2: use list_for_each_entry >> > > > static the bridge_list_lock >> > > > update copyright and author email >> > > > v3: no change to this patch in this version of patchset >> > > > v4: no change to this patch in this version of patchset >> > > > --- >> > > > drivers/fpga/fpga-bridge.c | 110 >> > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- >> > > > drivers/fpga/fpga-region.c | 11 ++-- >> > > > include/linux/fpga/fpga-bridge.h | 7 ++- >> > > > 3 files changed, 100 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-) >> > > > >> > > > diff --git a/drivers/fpga/fpga-bridge.c b/drivers/fpga/fpga-bridge.c >> > > > index fcd2bd3..af6d97e 100644 >> > > > --- a/drivers/fpga/fpga-bridge.c >> > > > +++ b/drivers/fpga/fpga-bridge.c >> > > > @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@ >> > > > * FPGA Bridge Framework Driver >> > > > * >> > > > * Copyright (C) 2013-2016 Altera Corporation, All Rights Reserved. >> > > > + * Copyright (C) 2017 Intel Corporation >> > > > * >> > > > * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it >> > > > * under the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License, >> > > > @@ -70,29 +71,12 @@ int fpga_bridge_disable(struct fpga_bridge *bridge) >> > > > } >> > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fpga_bridge_disable); >> > > > >> > > > -/** >> > > > - * of_fpga_bridge_get - get an exclusive reference to a fpga bridge >> > > > - * >> > > > - * @np: node pointer of a FPGA bridge >> > > > - * @info: fpga image specific information >> > > > - * >> > > > - * Return fpga_bridge struct if successful. >> > > > - * Return -EBUSY if someone already has a reference to the bridge. >> > > > - * Return -ENODEV if @np is not a FPGA Bridge. >> > > > - */ >> > > > -struct fpga_bridge *of_fpga_bridge_get(struct device_node *np, >> > > > - struct fpga_image_info *info) >> > > > - >> > > > +struct fpga_bridge *__fpga_bridge_get(struct device *dev, >> > > > + struct fpga_image_info *info) >> > > >> > > >> > > Should this be a static function? >> > >> > You are right. Will fix in v5. >> > >> > > >> > > I was recently told by mtd maintainers that function names prefixed with >> > > __ should be avoided. >> > >> > I see functions named thusly around in the kernel. Can you point me >> > to that thread or let me know what their thinking was about this? I >> > am open for suggestions for a new function name. >> >> Marek Vasut just told me to "Avoid function names with __ prefix" in >> >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9883977/ >> >> I tend to agree with you that the __ prefix seems to be around, but >> this could be a case of "evolution" of coding style. Historically, >> __ seems to mean an internal version of an external function. If __ >> is to be avoided, we might have to rename to fpga_bridge_get_internal(). > > Bear in mind that coding style can be subsystem specific. What applies > to MTD doesn't necessarily have to apply here.
Yes I agree. I'll keep the __ name unless someone gives us good explanation of the naming practice they are recommending. But yes, it should have been static.
Alan
| |