[PATCH v1 13/13] arm64: Rename arm64-internal cache maintenance functions

[Marc Zyngier]

On 2021-05-11 16:49, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 05:09:18PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 May 2021 at 16:43, Fuad Tabba <tabba at google.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Although naming across the codebase isn't that consistent, it
>> > tends to follow certain patterns. Moreover, the term "flush"
>> > isn't defined in the Arm Architecture reference manual, and might
>> > be interpreted to mean clean, invalidate, or both for a cache.
>> >
>> > Rename arm64-internal functions to make the naming internally
>> > consistent, as well as making it consistent with the Arm ARM, by
>> > clarifying whether the operation is a clean, invalidate, or both.
>> > Also specify which point the operation applies two, i.e., to the
>> > point of unification (PoU), coherence (PoC), or persistence
>> > (PoP).
>> >
>> > This commit applies the following sed transformation to all files
>> > under arch/arm64:
>> >
>> > "s/\b__flush_cache_range\b/__clean_inval_cache_pou_macro/g;"\
>> > "s/\b__flush_icache_range\b/__clean_inval_cache_pou/g;"\
> 
> For icaches, a "flush" is just an invalidate, so this doesn't need
> "clean".
> 
>> > "s/\binvalidate_icache_range\b/__inval_icache_pou/g;"\
>> > "s/\b__flush_dcache_area\b/__clean_inval_dcache_poc/g;"\
>> > "s/\b__inval_dcache_area\b/__inval_dcache_poc/g;"\
>> > "s/__clean_dcache_area_poc\b/__clean_dcache_poc/g;"\
>> > "s/\b__clean_dcache_area_pop\b/__clean_dcache_pop/g;"\
>> > "s/\b__clean_dcache_area_pou\b/__clean_dcache_pou/g;"\
>> > "s/\b__flush_cache_user_range\b/__clean_inval_cache_user_pou/g;"\
>> > "s/\b__flush_icache_all\b/__clean_inval_all_icache_pou/g;"
> 
> Likewise here.
> 
>> >
>> > Note that __clean_dcache_area_poc is deliberately missing a word
>> > boundary check to match the efistub symbols in image-vars.h.
>> >
>> > No functional change intended.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Fuad Tabba <tabba at google.com>
>> 
>> I am a big fan of this change: code is so much easier to read if the
>> names of subroutines match their intent.
> 
> Likewise!
> 
>> I would suggest, though, that we get rid of all the leading
>> underscores while at it: we often use them when refactoring existing
>> routines into separate pieces (which is where at least some of these
>> came from), but here, they seem to have little value.
> 
> That all makes sense to me; I'd also suggest we make the cache type the
> prefix, e.g.
> 
> * icache_clean_pou

I guess you meant "icache_inval_pou", right, as per your comment above?

Thanks,

         M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...