Re: [PATCH v7 4/5] i2c: aspeed: added driver for Aspeed I2C

[Brendan Higgins]

Adding Ryan to thread.

>> +static int __aspeed_i2c_init_clk(struct aspeed_i2c_bus *bus,
>> +                                struct platform_device *pdev)
>> +{
>
> Minor nit ... I'm really not fan of those underscores.
>
> We use __ functions in some cases in the kernel for low level
> helpers, usually when it's a low level variant of an existing
> function or an "unlocked" variant, but I don't think generalizing
> it to pretty much everything in the driver is worthwhile here.
>
> If you want to be explicit about locking, I would suggest you
> use a comment in front of the function explaining if it
> expects to be called with the lock held.
>
> We tend to only do that when *both* functions exist and one is
> implemented in term of the other.

Okay, I guess that makes sense. Sorry, I thought the "unlocked"
variant might refer to a function that you have to pay close attention
to the context in which it is called; with as many functions as I have
that require the lock to be held, I would like there to be some way to
say the function is "unsafe," but I guess if there is no convention to
do that, then there is no convention to do that.