[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdYQxD_GAeym7D=npBfrmn88MRYOFh9i2V0xeByiEiWKGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 21:18:52 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] of/irq: Introduce of_irq_get()
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Thierry Reding
<thierry.reding@...il.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 04:24:47PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
>> *_get typically also implies some reference counting which I don't
>> believe this does. I don't think having 2 functions with completely
>> different names doing the same thing with only a different calling
>> convention is good either. So I would keep the old name and the names
>> aligned.
>
> Okay, I'll make the new function __irq_of_parse_and_map().
I don't know why i detest __prefixing so much but I think it's
really nasty.
Usually this is reserved for compiler- and linker related things,
like __packed; or __init.
I would prefer irq_of_parse_and_map_strict() or something
like that.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists