Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-194317-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240529095009.1895618-1-arnd@kernel.org> <CAHp75VdRuK_sOF=25xP0azp8sOJ8DY_SRpLq9mUSaNEmWj5EAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <436667b5-308a-4a0b-b66e-230667ce0cc3@app.fastmail.com> <CAHp75VcVdwxv5Mm3GEv7SmsCiN3ZACpejNb7V_Ld1NBTxcXixQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <3fa493d3-51bb-48bf-b91f-57493be23937@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3fa493d3-51bb-48bf-b91f-57493be23937@app.fastmail.com>
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 17:53:28 +0300
Message-ID: <CAHp75VfDPuQWGJO3GU2cG8a9Pq9BY8LL2xvGdyvKhmSa6_0EvA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: int3472: make common part a separate module
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>, Daniel Scally <djrscally@gmail.com>, 
	Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>, =?UTF-8?Q?Ilpo_J=C3=A4rvinen?= <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>, 
	platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 5:48=E2=80=AFPM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote=
:
>
> On Wed, May 29, 2024, at 16:28, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 5:14=E2=80=AFPM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> w=
rote:
> >> On Wed, May 29, 2024, at 15:41, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >> > On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 12:50=E2=80=AFPM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.=
org>
> > It's different from the exported namespace.
> > The function prefixes are needed due to C language, as we can't have
> > two functions named the same. The export OTOH is what used for linking
> > modules and if there is no need to have it exported globally, if, for
> > example, compiling in this one.
> >
> > So, can we move to the exported namespace at the same time?
>
> Maybe you can come up with a patch then?

Yes, why not.

> I have no idea
> which namespace to use here, seeing that there are already
> six differnet namespaces in use in drivers/platform/x86/intel/
> but none of them seem to be a good fit for this one.
>
> Are you asking to just define another namespace here?

Yes.

> How would I define what the rules about using this namespace
> are, and where are they documented?

Currently we use a common sense, like a pattern:
SUBSYSTEM_DRIVER
or so.

In this case INTEL_INT3472 is good enough as it's unique enough to not
collide with anything else in Intel's world (okay, I hope that we
learnt our mistakes in the past and won't issue same ACPI ID for
different devices).

--=20
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko