* Daniel Lezcano <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Laurent Pinchart <[email protected]>
>
> The arch_timer_probed function returns whether the given time doesn't
> need to be probed. This can be the case when the timer has been probed
> already, but also when it has no corresponding enabled node in DT.
>
> Rename the function to arch_timer_need_probe and invert its return value
> to better reflect the function's purpose and behaviour.
>
> Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c | 13 +++++++------
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
> b/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
> index a3025e7..50bb7f2 100644
> --- a/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
> +++ b/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
> @@ -661,17 +661,17 @@ static const struct of_device_id
> arch_timer_mem_of_match[] __initconst = {
> };
>
> static bool __init
> -arch_timer_probed(int type, const struct of_device_id *matches)
> +arch_timer_need_probe(int type, const struct of_device_id *matches)
If we do a rename we might as well use valid English spelling such as
'arch_timer_needs_probing()'?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
