linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/15] genirq: Add runtime power management support for IRQ chips

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CACRpkdbYofPv+F6Ri0TOf1GA-0H4TWC4hU=PuO0dPbq8COzTEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 22 Mar 2016 12:46:50 +0100
From:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
Cc:	Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
	Benoît Cousson <bcousson@...libre.com>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
	"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-OMAP <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/15] genirq: Add runtime power management support for
 IRQ chips

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com> wrote:
> On 17/03/16 15:13, Jon Hunter wrote:

>>>>  struct irq_chip {
>>>> +   struct device   *parent;
>>>
>>> Nit: Please don't call this just "parent". We have parent fields in
>>> irq_data and irq_domain structures, and they always are a pointer to the
>>> same type, indicating some form of stacking. Here, we're pointing to a
>>> different type altogether...
>>>
>>> How about calling it "dev", or "device" instead? It would make it much
>>> clearer that when crossing that pointer, we're in another subsystem
>>> altogether.
>>
>> I will defer to Linus W here, as it was his request we make this
>> 'parent' and not 'dev'. See ...
>>
>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=145035839623442&w=2
>
> Well, that contradicts the way use use the word "parent" in the IRQ
> subsystem, I guess. I'd settle for parent_device or something along
> those lines (but keep in mind I'm really bad at naming things).
>
> Anyway, enough bikeshedding... ;-)

I'm happy with .parent_device.

Yours,
Linus Walleij