[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200922192237.GA931970@xps15>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 13:22:37 -0600
From: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
To: Guennadi Liakhovetski <guennadi.liakhovetski@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: ohad@...ery.com, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, loic.pallardy@...com,
linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] rpmsg: virtio: rename rpmsg_create_channel
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 09:06:03AM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 06:09:51PM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > From: Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@...com>
> >
> > Rename the internal function as it is internal, and as
> > the name will be used in rpmsg_core.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@...com>
> > ---
> > drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c | 7 ++++---
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c b/drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c
> > index 7d7ed4e5cce7..e8d55c8b9cbf 100644
> > --- a/drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c
> > +++ b/drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c
> > @@ -395,8 +395,9 @@ static void virtio_rpmsg_release_device(struct device *dev)
> > * this function will be used to create both static and dynamic
> > * channels.
> > */
> > -static struct rpmsg_device *rpmsg_create_channel(struct virtproc_info *vrp,
> > - struct rpmsg_channel_info *chinfo)
> > +static struct rpmsg_device *
> > +__rpmsg_create_channel(struct virtproc_info *vrp,
> > + struct rpmsg_channel_info *chinfo)
>
> Nitpick: we now have 100 characters, so there's no *need* any more to split that
> line, now it's more a matter of consistent style and personal preference. Most
> functions in that file have function type and name on the same line, but a few
> also make the split like here...
>
So, we can choose our poison here I guess.
>
I agree - there is really no _better_ way of doing this. I'll let Bjorn make
the final call but I'm pretty sure he doesn't have a strong opinion either.
> Thanks
> Guennadi
>
> > {
> > struct virtio_rpmsg_channel *vch;
> > struct rpmsg_device *rpdev;
> > @@ -869,7 +870,7 @@ static int rpmsg_ns_cb(struct rpmsg_device *rpdev, void *data, int len,
> > if (ret)
> > dev_err(dev, "rpmsg_destroy_channel failed: %d\n", ret);
> > } else {
> > - newch = rpmsg_create_channel(vrp, &chinfo);
> > + newch = __rpmsg_create_channel(vrp, &chinfo);
> > if (!newch)
> > dev_err(dev, "rpmsg_create_channel failed\n");
> > }
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists