lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH V4] thermal: Add cooling device's statistics in sysfs
On 14-03-18, 16:01, Zhang Rui wrote:
> WARNING: please write a paragraph that describes the config symbol
> fully
> #147: FILE: drivers/thermal/Kconfig:18:
> +config THERMAL_STATISTICS
>
> WARNING: Consider renaming function(s)
> 'thermal_cooling_device_total_trans_show' to 'total_trans_show'
> #391: FILE: drivers/thermal/thermal_sysfs.c:901:
> +}
>
> WARNING: Consider renaming function(s)
> 'thermal_cooling_device_time_in_state_show' to 'time_in_state_show'
> #395: FILE: drivers/thermal/thermal_sysfs.c:905:
> +static DEVICE_ATTR(time_in_state, 0444,
>
> WARNING: Consider renaming function(s)
> 'thermal_cooling_device_reset_store' to 'reset_store'
> #397: FILE: drivers/thermal/thermal_sysfs.c:907:
> +static DEVICE_ATTR(reset, 0200, NULL,
> thermal_cooling_device_reset_store);
>
> WARNING: Consider renaming function(s)
> 'thermal_cooling_device_trans_table_show' to 'trans_table_show'
> #398: FILE: drivers/thermal/thermal_sysfs.c:908:
> +static DEVICE_ATTR(trans_table, 0444,
>
> total: 0 errors, 5 warnings, 366 lines checked
>
>
> I'm okay with the first one because the description does not have to be
> larger than 3 lines.

Right.

> the last 4 warnings makes sense to me. I think we should rename the
> function and use DEVICE_ATTR_RO() and DEVICE_ATTR_WO() instead.
>
> what do you think?

I got those warnings as well, and I quietly ignored them :)

I ignored the renaming part for the sake of consistency. The other existing
routines for similar purpose are named as:

thermal_cooling_device_type_show
thermal_cooling_device_max_state_show
thermal_cooling_device_cur_state_show
thermal_cooling_device_cur_state_store

for me it made more sense to follow that naming convention. And I didn't use the
_RO and _WO variants for the same reason.

Now here is what I propose now:

- You apply this patch as-is and ignore the warning.

- I will send few patches on top of that to do:
- renaming of all such routines to shorter versions.
- Use the _RO or _WO variants of the macro everywhere.

What do you say ?

--
viresh

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-14 09:19    [W:0.103 / U:2.748 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site