Re: [PATCH 2/3] platform: surface: Add surface xbl

[Felipe Balbi]

Hi,

Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> >> > Capital L will be better to read and understand the
>> >> > abbreviation. Actually usually we do something like this:
>> >> >
>> >> > Extensible Boot Loader (EBL)
>> >>
>> >> nah, this is silly Andy. It's just capitalized as eXtensible Boot
>> >> Loader, very much akin to eXtensible Host Controller Interface.
>> >
>> > My point here is to have a full name followed by the abbreviation. and
>> > n(O)t in (F)ancy st(Y)le.
>>
>> too bad my patch removing acronyms from the kernel got rejects :-p
>>
>> Seriously, this is pretty pointless. You're vouching for something that
>> will just cause confusion. Every piece of internal documentation refers
>> to xbl and you want this to be renamed to ebl because it looks nicer for
>> you. Thanks, but no thanks.
>
> Maybe I was too unclear. I'm not pushing for EBL, I'm pushing for the form os
>
> "Foo bAr BullSh*t (FABS)" vs. "(F)oo b(a)r (B)ull(s)h*t".
>
> If you have x there to be capitalized, do it like "eXtensible Boot
> Loader (XBL)". Is it too hard?

Take a breather Andy, you need it. Winter sure is coming

>> >> >  +static const struct attribute_group inputs_attr_group = {
>> >> >  +       .attrs = inputs_attrs,
>> >> >  +};
>> >> >  +
>> >> >  +static u8 surface_xbl_readb(void __iomem *base, u32 offset)
>> >> >  +{
>> >> >  +       return readb(base + offset);
>> >> >  +}
>> >> >  +
>> >> >  +static u16 surface_xbl_readw(void __iomem *base, u32 offset)
>> >> >  +{
>> >> >  +       return readw(base + offset);
>> >> >  +}
>> >> >
>> >> > Either use corresponding io accessors in-line, or make first parameter
>> >> > to be sirface_xbl pointer. Otherwise these helpers useless.
>> >>
>> >> I agree with passing surface_xbl point as first parameter, but calling
>> >> the accessors pointless is a bit much. At a minimum, they make it easier
>> >> to ftrace the entire driver by simply ftracing surface_xbl_*
>> >
>> > My point is that the above seems half-baked. It's pointless to have a
>> > func(a,b) { return readl(a + b); }. It doesn't add value.
>>
>> sure it does. echo surface_xbl_* > ftrace_filter_function (or whatever
>> the filename was) it reason enough IMHO. Not to mention that these
>> little accessors will likely be optimized by the compiler.
>
> readl() will appear in the traces, no? But yeah I also was thinking
> about the weakness in your argument that the compiler can silently
> inline them anyway.

In non-debug builds, when tracers are enabled a thunk will be added for
runtime patching ;-) (IIRC)

-- 
balbi