Re: [PATCH 2/2]: acpica/nfit: Rename not-armed bit definition

[Dan Williams]

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@xxxxxx> wrote:
> ACPI 6.0 NFIT Memory Device State Flags in Table 5-129 defines
> bit 3 as follows.
>
>   Bit [3] set to 1 to indicate that the Memory Device is observed
>   to be not armed prior to OSPM hand off. A Memory Device is
>   considered armed if it is able to accept persistent writes.
>
> This bit is currently defined as ACPI_NFIT_MEM_ARMED, which can be
> confusing as if the Memory Device is armed when this bit is set.
>
> Change the name to ACPI_NFIT_MEM_NOT_ARMED per the spec.
>
> Signed-off-by: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@xxxxxx>
> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Bob Moore <robert.moore@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/nfit.c              |    6 +++---
>  drivers/acpi/nfit.h              |    2 +-
>  include/acpi/actbl1.h            |    2 +-

This file "include/acpi/actbl1.h" is owned by the ACPICA project so
any changes need to come through them.  But that said, I'm not sure we
need friendly names at this level.

What I usually say about sysfs name changes to be more human friendly
is "sysfs is not a UI", i.e. it's not necessarily meant to be user
friendly.  As long as the names for the flags are distinct then
wrapping descriptive / accurate names around them is the role of
libndctl and userspace management software.

Similar feedback for patch1 in the sense that I don't think we need to
update the sysfs naming.  For example the API to retrieve the state of
the "arm" flag in libndctl is ndctl_dimm_failed_arm().
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/