[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <045bb0dd-6a88-36ba-203f-d0dcb9ae5b62@amazon.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 17:30:59 +0300
From: "Hawa, Hanna" <hhhawa@...zon.com>
To: Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>
CC: <thor.thayer@...ux.intel.com>, <bp@...en8.de>,
<mchehab@...nel.org>, <james.morse@....com>, <morbidrsa@...il.com>,
<ralf@...ux-mips.org>, <david.daney@...ium.com>,
<andy.gross@...aro.org>, <david.brown@...aro.org>,
<ckadabi@...eaurora.org>, <vnkgutta@...eaurora.org>,
<jglauber@...ium.com>, <khuong@...amperecomputing.com>,
<dwmw@...zon.co.uk>, <benh@...zon.com>, <ronenk@...zon.com>,
<talel@...zon.com>, <jonnyc@...zon.com>, <hanochu@...zon.com>,
<linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/1] edac: Add a counter parameter for
edac_device_handle_ue/ce()
On 8/1/2019 5:17 PM, Robert Richter wrote:
>> Don't you think it'll be confused to have different APIs between EDAC_MC and
>> EDAC_DEVICE?
>> (in MC the count passed as part of edac_mc_handle_error())
> I don't think edac_mc_handle_error() with 11 function arguments is a
> good reference for somethin we want to adopt. For the majority of
> drivers you just introduce another useless argument with the following
> pattern:
>
> edac_device_handle_ce(edac_dev, 1, 0, 0, edac_dev_name);
>
> IMO, the api should be improved when touching it.
Got it, I'll update the patch as you suggested.
Thanks,
Hanna
>
> -Robert
Powered by blists - more mailing lists