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

[Juri Lelli]

Hi,

On 25/05/17 15:18, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 03:43:16PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > 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:
> 
> > 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?
> 
> >  
> >  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();
> 
> >  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();
> 
> > -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?

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?

Thanks,

- Juri

--->8---