[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fbb752c30a921f251b7df130c942e20548ca0997.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 23:57:43 +0100
From: Bean Huo <huobean@...il.com>
To: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
"Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
"James E . J . Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
Can Guo <cang@...eaurora.org>,
Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] scsi: ufs-debugfs: Add error counters
On Thu, 2020-12-17 at 11:49 +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> >
> > The purpose of patch is acceptable, but I don't know why you choose
> > using ufshcd_core_* here.
>
> Do you mean you would like a different function name? 'ufshcd_init'
> is used
> already. The module is called ufshcd-core, so ufshcd_core_* seems
> appropriate.
>
> > Also. I don't know if module_init() is a proper way here.
>
> Can you be more specific? It is normal to do module initialization
> in
> module_init().
Hi Adrian
My concern that ufs_debugfs_init() is called in module_init(), but your
another debugfs initialization function ufs_debugfs_hba_init(hba)
called in the UFS host probe path.
If these two (module_init() and module_platform_driver())
initializaiton sequence always as your expectation: ufs_debugfs_init()-
->ufs_debugfs_hba_init(), that is fine, otherwise, it is better just
group them, make it simpler.
Thanks,
Bean
Powered by blists - more mailing lists