| Message ID | 1312981138-17020-2-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Mark, On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 01:58:58PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > Commit f12482c9 ("ARM: 6974/1: pmu: refactor reservation") changed > {release,reserve}_pmu to take an enum arm_pmu_type as a parameter, but > inconsistently named the parameter `type' or `device'. It would be nice > if these were consistent. > > This patch makes use of enum arm_pmu_type consistent, always using > 'device' as this is more common in usage. Thanks for fixing this. I'll take care of these two patches as fixes for 3.1. Will
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 01:58:58PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > Commit f12482c9 ("ARM: 6974/1: pmu: refactor reservation") changed > {release,reserve}_pmu to take an enum arm_pmu_type as a parameter, but > inconsistently named the parameter `type' or `device'. It would be nice > if these were consistent. > > This patch makes use of enum arm_pmu_type consistent, always using > 'device' as this is more common in usage. This is confusing. It's called arm_pmu_TYPE, and it's referred to as a type in printks. Yet you're renaming the variable to device. That just adds to the problem. What is it, a type number or a device number? If it's a device number, then the printks also need fixing, and maybe the enumerated type name too.
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:06:09AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 01:58:58PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > Commit f12482c9 ("ARM: 6974/1: pmu: refactor reservation") changed > > {release,reserve}_pmu to take an enum arm_pmu_type as a parameter, but > > inconsistently named the parameter `type' or `device'. It would be nice > > if these were consistent. > > > > This patch makes use of enum arm_pmu_type consistent, always using > > 'device' as this is more common in usage. > > This is confusing. It's called arm_pmu_TYPE, and it's referred to as a > type in printks. Yet you're renaming the variable to device. That just > adds to the problem. > > What is it, a type number or a device number? > > If it's a device number, then the printks also need fixing, and maybe the > enumerated type name too. Yes, we should uniformly use type instead of device. The only reason device is kicking around is because the functions used to take a platform_device rather than an arm_pmu_type. Once I've got an updated patch from Mark, I'll update my fixes branch and send a pull request to you Russell (I have a handful of other fixes that have been on the list). Cheers, Will
diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/pmu.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/pmu.h index 8ae32ba..456117c 100644 --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/pmu.h +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/pmu.h @@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ reserve_pmu(enum arm_pmu_type device); * a cookie. */ extern int -release_pmu(enum arm_pmu_type type); +release_pmu(enum arm_pmu_type device); /** * init_pmu() - Initialise the PMU. diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/pmu.c b/arch/arm/kernel/pmu.c index 2b70709..89cbdc5 100644 --- a/arch/arm/kernel/pmu.c +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/pmu.c @@ -27,22 +27,22 @@ static volatile long pmu_lock; static struct platform_device *pmu_devices[ARM_NUM_PMU_DEVICES]; static int __devinit pmu_register(struct platform_device *pdev, - enum arm_pmu_type type) + enum arm_pmu_type device) { - if (type < 0 || type >= ARM_NUM_PMU_DEVICES) { + if (device < 0 || device >= ARM_NUM_PMU_DEVICES) { pr_warning("received registration request for unknown " - "device %d\n", type); + "device %d\n", device); return -EINVAL; } - if (pmu_devices[type]) { + if (pmu_devices[device]) { pr_warning("rejecting duplicate registration of PMU device " - "type %d.", type); + "type %d.", device); return -ENOSPC; } - pr_info("registered new PMU device of type %d\n", type); - pmu_devices[type] = pdev; + pr_info("registered new PMU device of type %d\n", device); + pmu_devices[device] = pdev; return 0; }
Commit f12482c9 ("ARM: 6974/1: pmu: refactor reservation") changed {release,reserve}_pmu to take an enum arm_pmu_type as a parameter, but inconsistently named the parameter `type' or `device'. It would be nice if these were consistent. This patch makes use of enum arm_pmu_type consistent, always using 'device' as this is more common in usage. Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> --- arch/arm/include/asm/pmu.h | 2 +- arch/arm/kernel/pmu.c | 14 +++++++------- 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)