Re: [PATCH v1 5/6] software nodes: Split software_node_notify()

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 8:03 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 07:27:12PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Split software_node_notify_remove) out of software_node_notify()
> > and make device_platform_notify() call the latter on device addition
> > and the former on device removal.
> >
> > While at it, put the headers of the above functions into base.h,
> > because they don't need to be present in a global header file.
> >
> > No intentional functional impact.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/base/base.h      |    3 ++
> >  drivers/base/core.c      |    9 +++---
> >  drivers/base/swnode.c    |   61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
> >  include/linux/property.h |    2 -
> >  4 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: linux-pm/drivers/base/swnode.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/base/swnode.c
> > +++ linux-pm/drivers/base/swnode.c
> > @@ -11,6 +11,8 @@
> >  #include <linux/property.h>
> >  #include <linux/slab.h>
> >
> > +#include "base.h"
> > +
> >  struct swnode {
> >       struct kobject kobj;
> >       struct fwnode_handle fwnode;
> > @@ -1053,7 +1055,7 @@ int device_add_software_node(struct devi
> >        * balance.
> >        */
> >       if (device_is_registered(dev))
> > -             software_node_notify(dev, KOBJ_ADD);
> > +             software_node_notify(dev);
>
> Should this now be called "software_node_notify_add()" to match up with:
>
> >       if (device_is_registered(dev))
> > -             software_node_notify(dev, KOBJ_REMOVE);
> > +             software_node_notify_remove(dev);
>
> The other being called "_remove"?
>
> Makes it more obvious to me :)

The naming convention used here follows platform_notify() and
platform_notify_remove(), and the analogous function names in ACPI for
that matter.

I thought that adding _add in just one case would be sort of odd, but
of course I can do that, so please let me know what you want me to do.

Cheers!