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

[Heikki Krogerus]

On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 08:30:06PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 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.

So why not rename those instead: platform_notify() to
platform_notify_add() and so on? You are in any case modifying
acpi_device_notify() in this series, and I think there is only one
place left where .platform_notify is assigned. I believe you also
wouldn't then need to worry about the function name collision (3/6).

> 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.

I would prefer the "_add" ending, but in any case, FWIW:

Reviewed-by: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


-- 
heikki