linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 2/3] clk: gate: expose clk_gate_ops::is

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: <1ed5052f-7d42-b57f-d12f-5ea003a2c5a9@mleia.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Jul 2017 03:25:44 +0300
From:   Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@...ia.com>
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     gabriel.fernandez@...com, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Nicolas Pitre <nico@...aro.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        daniel.thompson@...aro.org, andrea.merello@...il.com,
        radoslaw.pietrzyk@...il.com, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Sylvain Lemieux <slemieux.tyco@...il.com>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
        ludovic.barre@...com, olivier.bideau@...com,
        amelie.delaunay@...com, gabriel.fernandez.st@...il.com,
        Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/3] clk: gate: expose clk_gate_ops::is_enabled

On 07/19/2017 01:52 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 07/18, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>> On 07/18/2017 10:53 AM, gabriel.fernandez@...com wrote:
>>> From: Gabriel Fernandez <gabriel.fernandez@...com>
>>>  }
>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clk_gate_is_enabled);
>>>  
>>>  const struct clk_ops clk_gate_ops = {
>>>  	.enable = clk_gate_enable,
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/clk-provider.h b/include/linux/clk-provider.h
>>> index c59c625..e9587ab 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/clk-provider.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/clk-provider.h
>>> @@ -343,6 +343,7 @@ struct clk_hw *clk_hw_register_gate(struct device *dev, const char *name,
>>>  		u8 clk_gate_flags, spinlock_t *lock);
>>>  void clk_unregister_gate(struct clk *clk);
>>>  void clk_hw_unregister_gate(struct clk_hw *hw);
>>> +int clk_gate_is_enabled(struct clk_hw *hw);
>>
>> Here the prefix does not reflect the type of its argument, it might be
>> acceptable for a veiled function, but it is not wanted for the exported
>> function. Something like clk_hw_gate_is_enabled() is expected here, but
>> again, let's firstly come to an agreement, that the export is needed.
>>
> 
> I'd prefer clk_gate_is_enabled() as it's not a struct clk_hw_gate,
> it's a struct clk_gate

Formally it's a 'struct clk_hw', and 'struct clk_hw_gate' does not exist.

> and there isn't any requirement for function names to reflect the type
> of the argument. That's what we have type analysis for.

Sure, a function name can be selected arbitrary, however because in this
particular case type analysis operates on 'struct clk_hw', it would fail
to separate 'struct clk_gate' from 'struct clk_divider', a little hint
in the naming may be helpful.

I don't insist on my preference, of course your acceptance is sufficient.

--
With best wishes,
Vladimir