On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 08:44:19AM +0200, Jean Pihet wrote: > On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 6:08 AM, mark gross <markgr...@thegnar.org> wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 03:37:43PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> On Sunday, August 14, 2011, Jean Pihet wrote: > >> > Hi Rafael, Mark, > >> > > >> > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <r...@sisk.pl> wrote: > >> > > On Saturday, August 13, 2011, mark gross wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 05:06:42PM +0200, jean.pi...@newoldbits.com > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > From: Jean Pihet <j-pi...@ti.com> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > In preparation for the per-device constratins support: > >> > >> > - rename update_target to pm_qos_update_target > >> > >> > - generalize and export pm_qos_update_target for usage by the > >> > >> > upcoming > >> > >> > per-device latency constraints framework: > >> > >> > . operate on struct pm_qos_constraints for constraints > >> > >> > management, > >> > >> > . introduce an 'action' parameter for constraints > >> > >> > add/update/remove, > >> > >> > . the return value indicates if the aggregated constraint value > >> > >> > has > >> > >> > changed, > >> > >> > - update the internal code to operate on struct pm_qos_constraints > >> > >> > - add a NULL pointer check in the API functions > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Jean Pihet <j-pi...@ti.com> > >> > ... > >> > >> > +/* Action requested to pm_qos_update_target */ > >> > >> > +enum pm_qos_req_action { > >> > >> > + PM_QOS_ADD_REQ, /* Add a new request */ > >> > >> > + PM_QOS_UPDATE_REQ, /* Update an existing request */ > >> > >> > + PM_QOS_REMOVE_REQ /* Remove an existing request */ > >> > >> > +}; > >> > >> > + > >> > >> > >> > >> What do you need this enum for? The function names *_update_*, > >> > >> *_add_*, > >> > >> and *_remove_* seem to be pretty redundant if you have to pass an > >> > >> enum > >> > >> that could possibly conflict with the function name. > >> > >> > >> > >> > #ifdef CONFIG_PM > >> > >> > +int pm_qos_update_target(struct pm_qos_constraints *c, struct > >> > >> > plist_node *node, > >> > >> > + enum pm_qos_req_action action, int value); > >> > >> The action for update_target better damn well be "PM_QOS_UPDATE_REQ" > >> > >> or > >> > >> there is something strange going on.... BTW what shold this function > >> > >> do > >> > >> if the pm_qos_req_action was *not* the UPDATE one? > >> > > >> > The meaning of pm_qos_update_target is 'update the PM QoS target > >> > constraints lists'. As described in the changelog the intention of > >> > this patch is to implement the constraints lists management logic in > >> > update_target and simplify the API functions (add/update/remove). It > >> > is also exported for the upcoming (patch 06/15]) to use it as well. > >> > >> The enums are fine by me and they allow us to simplify the code > >> quite a bit. > >> > > Ok, but they look a bit sloppy to me as we now have an API that says > > "add" we can actually pass in an enum that says "remove". > We have an API that says 'update target' that we pass in a parameter > that says 'add request', 'update request' or 'remove request'. > If it is required I could just rename the internal function > update_target, in a later patch.
You are right. I thought I saw the enum added to the other API's for some reason. Still, with this update we have an API overloaded through that enum parameter providing 2 add, 2 delete and 2 update API's Each pair doing about the same thing. To me it feels like a baby step toward an ioctl type of API that I don't like. I'm not going to fight about it any more but I don't like such API's as they tend to get hard to read and get out of control. please rethink this a little. --mark -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html