On 07/18, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> On 07/18/2017 10:53 AM, gabriel.fernan...@st.com wrote:
> > From: Gabriel Fernandez <gabriel.fernan...@st.com>
> > }
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clk_gate_is_enabled);
> >
> > const struct clk_ops clk_gate_ops = {
> > .enable = clk_gate_enable,
> > diff --git a/include/linux/clk-provider.h b/include/linux/clk-provider.h
> > index c59c625..e9587ab 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/clk-provider.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/clk-provider.h
> > @@ -343,6 +343,7 @@ struct clk_hw *clk_hw_register_gate(struct device *dev,
> > const char *name,
> > u8 clk_gate_flags, spinlock_t *lock);
> > void clk_unregister_gate(struct clk *clk);
> > void clk_hw_unregister_gate(struct clk_hw *hw);
> > +int clk_gate_is_enabled(struct clk_hw *hw);
>
> Here the prefix does not reflect the type of its argument, it might be
> acceptable for a veiled function, but it is not wanted for the exported
> function. Something like clk_hw_gate_is_enabled() is expected here, but
> again, let's firstly come to an agreement, that the export is needed.
>
I'd prefer clk_gate_is_enabled() as it's not a struct
clk_hw_gate, it's a struct clk_gate and there isn't any
requirement for function names to reflect the type of the
argument. That's what we have type analysis for.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
