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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] component: add debugfs support
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
From:   Maciej Purski <m.purski@samsung.com>
Message-id: <4fa2267d-462b-ebef-7504-508084f4797f@samsung.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Nov 2017 14:21:19 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
        Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-version: 1.0
In-reply-to: <20171130125416.GB10595@n2100.armlinux.org.uk>
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-language: en-US
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
CMS-TYPE: 201P
References: <CGME20171130124906eucas1p2a671ee7d62ddebe9fde3a5def2d97f44@eucas1p2.samsung.com>
        <1512046112-9474-1-git-send-email-m.purski@samsung.com>
        <20171130125416.GB10595@n2100.armlinux.org.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 11/30/2017 01:54 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 01:48:32PM +0100, Maciej Purski wrote:
>> Currently there is no information in any vfs about which devices
>> a master component consists of, what makes debugging hard if
>> one of the component devices fails to register.
>>
>> Add 'device_component' directory to debugfs. Create a new file for each
>> component master, when it has been added. Remove it on a master
>> deletion. Show a list of devices required by the given master and their
>> status (registered or not). This provides an easy way to check, which
>> device has failed to register if the given master device is not
>> available in the system.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Maciej Purski <m.purski@samsung.com>
>> ---
>> Changes in v4:
>> - fix and expand commit message
>> - inline no-op functions
> 
> inline on static functions makes no sense - the compiler itself is at
> liberty to inline any static function that it thinks would benefit,
> and it is likely to do so with such a simple function.
> 
> Generally we prefer to omit "inline" in .c files and let the compiler
> decide whether to inline or not.
> 
> What was the reason for making this change?  Do you have a case where
> this doesn't happen?
> 
I don't have any case. I just thought this would be more obvious, but if the 
general preference is to omit "inline", I'll fix this in the next version. Thanks.

Best regards,

Maciej

From 1585495664762718549@xxx Thu Nov 30 12:54:54 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1585495410034347956
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread