Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 22 Sep 2020 13:22:37 -0600
From:   Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
To:     Guennadi Liakhovetski <guennadi.liakhovetski@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     ohad@wizery.com, bjorn.andersson@linaro.org, loic.pallardy@st.com,
        linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] rpmsg: virtio: rename rpmsg_create_channel
Message-ID: <20200922192237.GA931970@xps15>
References: <20200922001000.899956-1-mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
 <20200922001000.899956-2-mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
 <20200922070603.GA4648@ubuntu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200922070603.GA4648@ubuntu>
Precedence: bulk

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@st.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@st.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
> >