Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20191003000310.17099-1-chris.packham@alliedtelesis.co.nz>
 <20191003000310.17099-3-chris.packham@alliedtelesis.co.nz>
 <CAMuHMdV7syxxtnHEcgFBrf5DLo-M_71tZFWHHQ6kTO=2A1eVhg@mail.gmail.com> <86blutdlap.wl-maz@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <86blutdlap.wl-maz@kernel.org>
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 11 Oct 2019 09:26:54 +0200
Message-ID: <CACRpkdb7W1iitkRh=B-cw1JGPey76SrAgasvHkh8a81o3n9qGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] pinctrl: iproc: use unique name for irq chip
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        Chris Packham <chris.packham@alliedtelesis.co.nz>,
        Ray Jui <rjui@broadcom.com>,
        Scott Branden <sbranden@broadcom.com>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com>,
        Rayagonda Kokatanur <rayagonda.kokatanur@broadcom.com>,
        Li Jin <li.jin@broadcom.com>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 10:14 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 08:30:50 +0100,
> Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > CC MarcZ
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 2:03 AM Chris Packham
> > <chris.packham@alliedtelesis.co.nz> wrote:
> > > Use the dev_name(dev) for the irqc->name so that we get unique names
> > > when we have multiple instances of this driver.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Chris Packham <chris.packham@alliedtelesis.co.nz>
> >
> > A while ago, Marc Zyngier pointed out that the irq_chip .name field
> > should contain the device's class name, not the instance's name.
> > Hence the current code is correct?
>
> Thanks Geert for looping me in. The main reasons why I oppose this
> kind of "let's show as much information as we can in /proc/interrupts"
> are:
>
> - It clutters the output badly: the formatting of this file, which is
>   bad enough when you have a small number of CPUs, becomes unreadable
>   when you have a large number of them *and* stupidly long strings
>   that only make sense on a given platform.
>
> - Like it or not, /proc is ABI. We don't change things randomly there
>   without a good reason, and debugging isn't one of them.
>
> - Debug information belongs to debugfs, where we already have plenty
>   of stuff (see CONFIG_GENERIC_IRQ_DEBUGFS). I'd rather we improve
>   this infrastructure if needed, rather than add platform specific
>   hacks.
>
> </rant>

I have reverted the patch.

Yours,
Linus Walleij