| Message ID | 20180416154021.25626-3-s.nawrocki@samsung.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Hi Sylwester, On 17.04.2018 00:40, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: > The spi pointer argument is not used now so remove it. While at it > s3c64xx_ prefix is added to the function name. These for me are two different patches, but in any case it's trivial so that I don't mind it too much. > Signed-off-by: Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@samsung.com> Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti <andi@etezian.org> Thanks, Andi
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 5:40 PM, Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@samsung.com> wrote: > The spi pointer argument is not used now so remove it. While at it > s3c64xx_ prefix is added to the function name. > > Signed-off-by: Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@samsung.com> > --- > drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c | 7 +++---- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> Best regards, Krzysztof
Hi Andi, On 04/16/2018 09:09 PM, andi@etezian.org wrote: > On 17.04.2018 00:40, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: >> The spi pointer argument is not used now so remove it. While at it >> s3c64xx_ prefix is added to the function name. > > These for me are two different patches, but in any case it's trivial > so that I don't mind it too much. I am going to drop renaming from this patch. There are 2 more functions (wait_for_pio(), wait_for_dma()) without prefix, should we rename them too or rather leave all 3 as they are now?
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@samsung.com> wrote: > Hi Andi, > > On 04/16/2018 09:09 PM, andi@etezian.org wrote: >> On 17.04.2018 00:40, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: >>> The spi pointer argument is not used now so remove it. While at it >>> s3c64xx_ prefix is added to the function name. >> >> These for me are two different patches, but in any case it's trivial >> so that I don't mind it too much. > > I am going to drop renaming from this patch. There are 2 more functions > (wait_for_pio(), wait_for_dma()) without prefix, should we rename them > too or rather leave all 3 as they are now? Indeed it is kind of mixed up - some purely local functions (not even passed through pointer to some ops) have prefix, some do not. If you ask me, I would prefer to have the prefix on all of them because: 1. If they appear in call trace (where backtrace pointers are not telling anything) it is easy to understand their location, 2. having generic name like "wait_for_dma" sounds for me like generic, Linux-wide macro (but it is not). However I do not insist on that. Best regards, Krzysztof
diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c b/drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c index b7333a883442..e90e60bc1ecc 100644 --- a/drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c @@ -348,9 +348,8 @@ static bool s3c64xx_spi_can_dma(struct spi_master *master, return xfer->len > (FIFO_LVL_MASK(sdd) >> 1) + 1; } -static void enable_datapath(struct s3c64xx_spi_driver_data *sdd, - struct spi_device *spi, - struct spi_transfer *xfer, int dma_mode) +static void s3c64xx_enable_datapath(struct s3c64xx_spi_driver_data *sdd, + struct spi_transfer *xfer, int dma_mode) { void __iomem *regs = sdd->regs; u32 modecfg, chcfg; @@ -665,7 +664,7 @@ static int s3c64xx_spi_transfer_one(struct spi_master *master, sdd->state &= ~RXBUSY; sdd->state &= ~TXBUSY; - enable_datapath(sdd, spi, xfer, use_dma); + s3c64xx_enable_datapath(sdd, xfer, use_dma); /* Start the signals */ s3c64xx_spi_set_cs(spi, true);
The spi pointer argument is not used now so remove it. While at it s3c64xx_ prefix is added to the function name. Signed-off-by: Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@samsung.com> --- drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c | 7 +++---- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) -- 2.14.2